Keys Writings, Part 20

This entry is part 34 of 34 in the series 2011C

Dec 2, 2011

Sample signatures of Apple founders for handwriting analysis

John C I found this document with signatures of Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak, and Ronald Wayne, the three men who founded Apple. Wayne later dropped out.

JJ might find these early signatures from 1976, and if there more recent signatures, it might be interesting to compare them.


JJ Thanks for digging this up. Since Steve’s signature is from 1976 I did some digging and found several more recent ones. Unfortunately, I cannot find any of his regular handwriting which would reveal more.

Several things are what I would expect and several were not.

Because he had cancer I would suspect that he had problems with suppression but there is virtually no suppression in his signature. It is strange he died of cancer when he seemed to be on a very good diet and was expressive emotionally. There is one thing I noticed that could cause emotional problems linked to cancer and that is he would yield to others, sometime against his better judgment. This is surprising since he is portrayed as being fairly unyielding. I think this yielding characteristic shows up in the book where time and time again others would share their ideas and views and he would reject them but then the next day he would be totally accepting of them and sometimes act like they were his own. His handwriting would indicate he changed his mind largely because he did a lot of thinking of how to accommodate others even though this did not seem to be true.

Even though he does not suppress emotion he did suppress his thoughts and was quite secretive.

Another thing that is somewhat surprising is he was quite insecure and he was very nervous about taking chances. What compensated for this though was his personal gutsiness and courage. These would override his fears.

One more thing that may surprise some is that he wasn’t concerned about getting a lot of personal recognition. If his products were appreciated then he was happy and that was the main thing.

His writing, especially his later writing shows that he really thought outside the box and was unconventional in many ways. He was very unconventional in almost every way and even though some portray him as a difficult personality the writing reveals that he had powerful personal magnetism and charm. I can see why many were very devoted to him.

He was a very balanced thinker and interested in all phases of life, the spiritual, social and material.

He was intuitive, creative and often compared his work to art which is interesting because he could have been an artist if he had put his attention in that direction.

The interesting thing about Wozniak’s writing is that he writes more like a schoolteacher than an engineer or computer genius. He’s a lot more of a people person and not as intelligent as I expected.

John: This isn’t yielding, this is stealing. But, he, himself, admitted that the best ideas are stolen.

JJ It was both. Stealing ideas does not negate the yielding. I think stealing is a harsh way of putting it when he was running the company and already owned whatever anyone produced. Also both Jobs and the employee involved knew where the ideas came from. Jobs was very sparse with his praise making such very valuable. I think that he felt that just using an employees idea was enough to give them recognition.

Everyone thinks a little differently and one has to put himself in the guy’s shoes to understand. I think that those who worked close with him did understand and that is why most really liked working for him and supported him despite his quirky ways.

Dec 3, 2011

Larry’s Questions

Larry W writes: Dinosaurs and men. What about lizard men? I admit I know little about Atlantis. But didn’t the great final confrontation occur between lizard men and homosapiens in Atlantis times? Was that just 10,000 years ago? Was it before Adam (the latest one who appeared about 6,000 years ago)?

JJ The Atlantis mentioned by Plato as existing around 10,000 years ago was just a small remnant of the civilization. HPB taught that Atlantis reached its greatest quality of civilization hundreds of thousands of years before this. The reptile people were most likely of great antiquity.

There have been many strange human-like skeletons found, some even with horns. Some pictures are presented in the video I referenced a couple days ago. Here is an interesting article about some unorthodox discoveries.


In addition to any physical evidence there are many stories and legends passed down about the reptile race. Here are some: Male

Boreas (Aquilon to the Romans): the Greek god of the cold north wind, described by Pausanias as a winged man with serpents instead of legs. Cecrops I: the mythical first King of Athens was half man, half snake Dragon Kings: creatures from Chinese mythology sometimes depicted as reptilian humanoids Fu Xi: serpentine founding figure from Chinese mythology Glycon: a snake god who had the head of a man. Ningizzida, Lord of the Tree of Life, mentioned in the Epic of Gilgamesh and linked to the water serpent constellation Hydra. Quetzalcoatl or the “feathered serpent”, the creator god and sky god of the Aztecs; variously depicted as a man, a serpent, or a reptilian humanoid. Sobek: Ancient Egyptian crocodile-headed god Shenlong: a Chinese dragon thunder god, depicted with a human head and a dragon’s body Typhon, the “father of all monsters” in Greek mythology, was a man from the waist up, and a mass of seething vipers from the waist down. Zahhak, a figure from Zoroastrian mythology who, in Ferdowsi’s epic Shahnameh, grows a serpent on either shoulder

Female Cihuacoatl, literally “Snake Woman”, an Aztec goddess Echidna, the wife of Typhon in Greek mythology, was half woman, half snake. Moura Encantada from Portuguese and Galician folklore. The Gorgons: Sisters in Greek mythology who had serpents for hair. The Lamia: a child-devouring female demon from Greek mythology depicted as half woman, half serpent. N�wa: serpentine founding figure from Chinese mythology Wadjet pre-dynastic snake goddess of Lower Egypt – sometimes depicted as half snake, half woman The White Snake: a figure from Chinese folklore

Either Some djinn in Islamic mythology are described as alternating between human and serpentine forms. Nāga (Devanagari: reptilian beings from Hindu mythology said to live underground and interact with human beings on the surface. The Serpent: a character from the Genesis creation narrative occasionally depicted with legs, and sometimes identified with Satan, though its representations have been both male and female.

Larry: But were the lizard men a uniform humanoid race or several different types of reptiles?

JJ You can use the Law of Correspondences to discover this. Look at all the varieties of the human race. This would indicate there was also a variety of reptiles.

Larry Does this relate directly to the snake story in the Garden of Eden?

JJ Yes, the idea of an intelligent serpent goes back to ancient times.

Larry Also, I always wonder what happens to those planets where the lizards kill off all the humans. Are they totally incapable of ever progressing further?

JJ Even steps backward are steps forward in the total scheme of things. If you take a wrong turn and find out it was a mistake and get back on the right road then the wrong turn was necessary to discover the right direction. There is a limit to the progression a soul can make in any form and sooner or later one must move on.

Larry Do those planets eventually get destroyed?

JJ All life forms fulfill a necessary function and do not get destroyed just because they are dominated by reptile life. Some planets and even star systems get destroyed for a variety of reasons.

Larry Will we fly there someday on a seeding mission and blow them away with far advanced tech and spiritual skills and re-seed the planet with humans? This might be a lot like ordinary seeding missions except with extermination at the beginning.

JJ The common sense thing will be to leave their evolution to themselves.

Larry We’ve been told Sanat is an innovator, not doing things precisely the same way as before but shortening up the process by introducing a lot more pain. Did I state this idea accurate?

JJ The enhancement came from stimulating the minds of humans more than pain. There was already plenty of pain to go around.

Larry So were many of us formerly lizard men? Now we/they use human bodies – ourselves, our families, our friends? Half and half? Or some other ratio?

JJ Either in this system or some other most (or perhaps all) of us have been in the serpent kingdom.

Larry: So would lizard men naturally think more like a hunter/killer?

JJ Think Kinglons from Star Trek.

Larry: Would they only eat one meal every other day – all meat?

JJ Your guess is as good as mine.

Larry Another issue that often reveals my ignorance is that of “root races”. I would love to see an outline showing root races one through now and beyond with a few paragraphs under each detailing similarities and differences and maybe something about origins.

JJ The root races are pretty simple; it’s the sub rootraces that are difficult to follow. The first two were in etheric matter so there is no remnant of them. The third, the Lemurian, has a residual in the Australian Aborigines but were more animal like in the beginning.

The Orientals are a residual of the fourth, the Atlantean and the fifth is the Aryan.

Larry: JJ says to look for sixth root race bodies to begin appearing even now. He says the design will pay far more attention to beauty where previous innovations were more utilitarian. So who do you nominate as an example of a sixth root race cutie?

JJ The sixth root race will not be a totally different looking people but a synthesis and refinement of all the races we have now. When it is fully in dominance the average person will be somewhat tan and very refined in features. Some of the best looking people of all races foreshadow the race to come.

John C And, I like some books that nobody here has read nor will read, but which I firmly believe and know are inspired from God. Rhetorical question: Does that me not an Initiate? Does that many any of you not Initiates? I don’t think so.

JJ I’d be interested in inspired books you have read that you think those here would not read. Maybe members would give them a look.

The books we read do not make us initiates, though solid knowledge helps propel us along the path. I have encountered quite a few who have read AAB who show few of the signs of the initiate.


Dec 15, 2011

Who’s the Father?

Here’s some dialog I’ve been having with Mark who has an LDS background.

Mark: When you bring up Sanat Kumara, the first Adam, the Ancient of Days, I think of Brigham Young’s Adam God theory. Is this what Brigham Young was referring to? The other question I have: If what you are saying is true, then Sanat Kumara does not appear to be the Father of our spirits. If not, then who is the Father our spirits? Who is our Heavenly Father, the one Jesus Christ referred when he said, “I go to your God and my God”? Reply

JJ Brigham had a rough idea about Adam God but did not know the details.

Our spirits were not created through heavenly parents having physical sex as taught in m Mormonism. We are eternal beings and have always been. Our essence has been stimulated by other beings and we basically create ourselves with the help of others who have progressed far beyond us. The form you have now was designed by you in conjunction with higher lives and was different in past lives. After each live you participate in designing a more perfect body.

Mark: Romans 8:16 “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: 17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Psalms: 82:6 “I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.”

Ephesians 1:3 “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:”

Matthew 18:35 “So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.”

Are we not to take the words “children” and “Father” literally here, but figuratively?

Also, when Jesus speaks of his heavenly Father, is he referring to Sanat Kumara?

JJ Notice that Joseph Smith in the King Follett Discourse did not teach the idea of heavenly parents giving birth to our spirits.

We say that God himself is a self-existent being. Who told you so? It is correct enough; but how did it get into you heads? Who told you that man did not exist in like manner upon the same principles? Man does exist upon the same principles. God made a tabernacle and put a spirit into it, and it became a living soul. (Refers to the old Bible.) How does it read in the Hebrew? It does not say in the Hebrew that God created the spirit of man. It says “God made man out of the earth and put into him Adam’s spirit, and so became a living body.” The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is co-equal with God himself.

Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. It is a spirit from age to age, and there is no creation about it. All the minds and spirits that God ever sent into the world are susceptible of enlargement. End Quote

There is no outside creation to our spirit essence. The form we have now had a beginning at our physical birth and changes from age to age or life to life. There are those who assist and have assisted in our progress and in a sense they are fathers and mothers to us.

Our highest spiritual essence is our eternal father in heaven but higher lives are also referred to as our fathers. Melchizedek overshadowed Jesus and Jesus referred to him as Father.

Mark: Yes, Mormonism has always believed in the above Joseph Smith quote that we have always co-existed (in some form & essence) with God. Notwithstanding, what about the following principle- Matthew 6:10 “Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.” The Zohar adds more to this principle: Observe that God has made the earthly kingdom after the pattern of the heavenly kingdom, and whatever is done on earth has been preceded by its prototype in heaven. -Soncino Zohar, Bereshith, Section 1, Page 197a How could something as foundational as marriage, sexual intimacy, children ” the very heart of our earthly sociality ” not even exist in heaven? Yet, the language of the scriptures are filled with family references ” The Father, The Son, Children of God, Sons, Daughters, etc. How could this be?

JJ You are right that all things that exist on earth first existed in heaven, or higher spheres. There are seven planes altogether. The next level up from us is the astral composed of emotional energy. This is what Mormons generally refer to as the spirit world. The next up is the mental plane composed of mental matter and is directed by the energy of mind. These three are the worlds of form, the mental being the highest is similar to the LDS celestial kingdom.

Above the mental is the buddhic plane from which true intuition originates. This intuition links the worlds of form to the next plane, the atmic. This plane governs the universe of ideas. On this plane originates all creation that eventually materializes here on the earth. An idea there is carried through the intuitive plane to the mind, then to emotional matter in the spirit world until it materializes here on the earth. The concept of the form of your body originated in the atmic plane and descended as a seed until it reached the physical plane and developed as a physical vehicle for you.

The idea that our archetypes were created previously is true, but just somewhat different than orthodox Mormonism believes. Mark: You even referenced family language in your last post stating, “Our highest spiritual essence is our eternal father in heaven but higher lives are also referred to as our fathers.” Why use the term “father”? What definition of father are you using?

JJ The word father is used a number of different ways in the scriptures and other writings. It doesn’t always mean a literal father of a body. Even on this plane an adopted child calls his caretaker his father.

Consider the word in reference to a prophesy of Christ:

“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” Isa 9:6

Notice that Isaiah called prophesied Messiah “the everlasting Father.

The Book of Mormon does something similar:

“I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son �” The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son. And THEY ARE ONE God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and earth. and thus the flesh (Jesus) becoming subject to the Spirit (Christ), or the Son to the Father…” Mosiah 15:1-5.

One reason the Messiah is called Father is that he initiated the fathering of many sons of God. Any creator is a father to his creations.

Mark: Finally, curious to your response to this thought too- John 20:17 “Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.” Why would Jesus tell Mary Magdalene this if he was referring to Melchizedek? Was Melchizedek Mary Magdalene’s Father too?

JJ Melchizedek, who overshadowed Jesus is responsible for the creation of the sons of God here on the earth. He is therefore the father of all who aspire to be such including Mary Magdalene.

Above him is Sanat Kumara who is responsible for the creation of all human life of earth making him our Father also.

In addition to this if we were able (as did Christ) to ascend to the sixth plane we would arrive at the plane of the monad where the seed of our existence and intelligence resides. This dwells as a point of light in divine space something like a star dwells in physical space. This divine space is the mind of God and there is only one space which is the ultimate Father of us all.

Dec 22, 2011 Taking Advice I received this from a fellow Keys member.

I’m passing this on because it worked for me today…Dr Oz on TV said that to reach inner peace we should always finish things we start, and we all could use more calm in our lives during the hectic Holiday season. I looked around my house to find things I’d started and hadn’t finished, so I finished off a bottle of CROWN, a bottle of Chardonnay, a bodle of Baileys, a butle of wum, tha mainder of Valiuminun scriptins, an a box a chocletz. Yu haf no idr how fablus I feel rite now. Sned this to all who need inner piss. And telum u luvum.

Dec 23, 2011

SNL Skit

If yo haven’t seen it yet check this out.


Dec 23, 2011

Mysterious Iron Ball Falls from Space

Also check out the comments – very entertaining and creative.


Dec 26, 2011

New on Atlas Shrugged

Here’s some sad news about the Atlas Shrugged sequel from a blog:

This train ain’t coming, folks.

Let’s take an end-of-the-year assessment, shall we?

John Aglialoro, who funded it [Part I] using money he made as CEO of Cybex International, said that he wasn’t going to sink more of his own money into producing Part II, and that making that movie would depend on either the profitability of Part I or finding outside funding.

Part I was a flop in the movie theaters, making less than $5M in a five-week release. It was done in by Aglialoro’s cheaping out on advertising, and the fact that the movie was one of the worst-reviewed of the year — a 28 Metacritic score, which, though definitely terrible, was not by any means the worst of the 2011.

“Oh, but wait until the international release!”

The international release right now consists of a single screen at a single theater in Halifax. It looks like the entire international release will not reach even a dozen screens.

“Oh, but wait for DVD and BluRay!”

The DVD and BluRay releases are now very comfortably out of the top hundred on Amazon. A quick logarithmic estimate — based on the facts that the #1 DVD sold 1M units this week, that #30 sold 100K, and “Atlas” is below #150, is that about a thousand “Atlas” DVDs are being sold a week. BluRays are doing far, far worse, below #600.

“Oh, but wait for VOD!”

Thirty-three days after its release on video-on-demand, the movie rental is at #100 on iTunes. Both the home purchase and rental market, in other words, faded even faster than the disastrous theatrical release.

So, add it all up, and what do you have? Everyone now knows quite clearly that “Atlas Shrugged: Part I” will not recoup its investment this year, next year, and possibly ever.

What’s more, John Algialoro couldn’t deep-pocket Part II into existence even if he wanted to, because his main source of wealth  shares in Cybex  have dramatically tumbled. In June 2010, when shooting for Part I began, Cybex was trading at $1.30; it’s last close was $0.48, and it seems certain that NASDAQ will delist it in January for not meeting certain minimum requirements for business size and share price, further knocking the share price down.

So now it’s down to Magic Money Raining from the Sky. Aglialoro has two reasons not to underwrite Part II: he lost his shirt the first time, and he has no shirt left to lose. Are the studios going to step up and make a sequel to a flop, something which was demonstrated to deflate and go belly-up as soon as it hit the screens? Nope.

So where is part II?

Nowheresville. That’s why no cast has been announced, no director, no date for principal shooting, nothing.

This train ain’t coming.

JJ Comment:

I think this is really strange that the movie did so badly when Ayn Rand has such a large following and in my opinion the movie was very well done. I think its failure has more to do with the fact that when a point of light is trying to pierce the darkness that it is just overwhelmed until the darkness loses some power.

For instance, all readers who have compared The Immortal with the Celestine Prophesy think the Immortal is much better yet The Celestine Prophesy has sold overwhelmingly more copies. I certainly have great respect for all those lights who persevere in the face of seemingly unending darkness. Faith in the power of the dominating good is always a source of power and strength.

Dec 27, 2011

Natural Selection

JJ wrote [awhile back]: “… there can be no “natural selection,” or choice unless there is intelligence at work. Without intelligence there can only be ‘random selection.'” –

JJ wrote [in a follow-on post]: “The conundrum comes in when you consider that natural selection as defined by the evolutionists takes place with no apparent intelligence or conscious choice involved. […] In the process of evolution the more appropriate forms survive and the one ill equipped fade away, but both forms were created by intelligent choice.” –

Dan: What do you call it when “the more appropriate form survives and the one ill equipped fades away”?

This surviving/fading away process is what evolutionary theorists refer to as “natural selection”, whether the various forms that are “selected” from are themselves the result of intelligence isn’t addressed in the term “natural selection”, just the fact that one survives and the other fades away without influence (other than which survives/produces more offspring).

The “selection” is “made” by whether the thing lives/reproduces more or does not/dies out, that’s why they refer to it as “natural” rather than “directed” or “intelligent”.

Are you saying some one/thing actually makes an conscious, intelligent “choice” as to which should/will go on (is more suitable in/for a particular environment) and which shouldn’t?

Even if life itself is (the FORMS are) the result of INHERENT intelligence, it would be quite a stretch to use that as a basis for saying: which form survives/prospers and which doesn’t in any particular environment – the “selection” process – is itself intelligent!

JJ Response: After I made those comments my inner self tugged at me telling me that I had painted an incomplete picture but never got around to expanding on the subject. I notice that if I say anything inaccurate or leave anything undone someone here almost always catches it. You guys certainly keep me on my toes.

You quote me saying this: “… there can be no “natural selection,” or choice unless there is intelligence at work.”

The problem I have is with the term “natural selection.” The difficulty caused in using the word “selection” is that the word itself implies an intelligent choice and a choice, as I said, involves intelligence, or intelligently weighing two alternatives and then picking one.

Technically what they call natural selection is really natural default. A default can happen with no intelligence involved but a selection implies an intelligent discriminating mind at work.

Let’s look at a few elementary situations caused by the application of natural selection.

1. If it rains for days on end then we will have muddy streets.

No one really selected or chose the appearance of muddy streets. Instead it is a default situation due to changing circumstances.

Now because of the mud some intelligence may decide to build a sidewalk, but this does not appear by default but through intelligent choice and design and is not a part of what they call natural selection.

2. If it is cold then sooner or later it will snow.

The appearance of snow is what they would call a natural selection of nature, but no one selected the snow. It occurred by default. It always occurs in winter by default due to the arising cold conditions.

Now the cold may force me to wear a coat but my wearing a coat involves a choice and therefore does not fit in the definition of natural selection.

Millions of years can pass ands each year when it gets cold there will be snow but each year this occurs by default with no choice involved. Those applying intelligence to the situation will go beyond nature’s default and not only make coats but created heated homes, cars and thermal underwear. All these materialize through intelligent design, not natural selection.

Now orthodox Darwinists tell us that all life evolved through nature’s defaults with no intelligent selection involved – even though they call it natural selection.

For instance, if the climate changed and became much colder wild animals without a good coat of fur would freeze and those having a thick coat would survive and breed other animals with thick fur causing them to evolve into much furrier animals than before. This they say is the explanation of how evolution moves forward with no intelligence involved.

The problem with this explanation is that their examples of natural selection involves life forms that are already much more complex than our most sophisticated computers. After all, the DNA of a simple plant has most of its ingredients and functions in common with animal and human DNA.

The programming for creating thicker fur was already built into the animal and no one can demonstrate how nature’s default system (natural selection) could have created the complex programming. They can only demonstrate that life can adapt to situations because of programming that already exists, but cannot demonstrate how the programming came to be with no intelligence choice.

To prove the theory of natural selection one would have to start with materials that are not living that lack the already highly sophisticated DNA. If they could then observe inorganic matter coming together on its own to produce a cell then they would have something.

Scientists are hard at work attempting to create life in the laboratory. They say that if they do this it will prove evolution and that there is no God or Intelligent Designer.

To this I give a bug Duh and a dunce hat.

If scientists create life then how did that life appear? Intelligent designers (scientists) created it. This would only prove that a vehicle for life could only manifest through extremely difficult applied intelligent effort.

I know that religious people say that science will never create life, but they are wrong. The beginning of a new life form has already taken place. It is the silicon based embryo life called the computer. This will eventually evolve into a recognized life form. Eventually we will see beings like Data from the Star Trek series.

And Data would be the first to admit that he was not created through a default system of natural selection. He knows he has a creator.

Dec 27, 2011

Re: Natural Selection

JJ wrote: To prove the theory of natural selection one would have to start with materials that are not living that lack the already highly sophisticated DNA.

Dan: I think you mean “to prove the theory of evolutionary improvement …”, not the “theory of natural selection”.

JJ To be technically correct I should have written:

To prove the theory that natural selection can create life one would have to start with materials that are not living that lack the already highly sophisticated DNA.

Dec 28, 2011 Re: Natural Selection

LWK Have to wonder what “life” really is and if it is every created? Maybe it is not created but has always existed and always will exist. Perhaps only the physical “vehicle” gets created through which eternally existing life expresses itself?

Really don’t know, but then it occurred to me that I don’t even know what life really is (so how can I know if it was ever created?)? JJ Here’s my definition of life

An energy which exhibits power to create and organize as well as destroy. Evidence of intelligence is manifested through its movement.

Dec 29, 2011

Re: Natural Selection

Dan: Darwin himself never even discussed the origin/creation of life nor how the variations of form came about that are selected amongst. The most he said about creation was this:

JJ Many scientists who are atheists believe that life itself evolved through the process of natural selection. They only follow Darwin to the extent that he supports their mindset.

Dec 29, 2011 Re: Natural Selection

Dan: Natural Selection could be the default mechanism/system for evolving physical experience and does not eliminate the possibility of intelligent action by either a pervasive, inherent intelligence or influence by intelligent entities at various points such as Sanat Kumara.

The thing to remember is that the “selection” in (basic) natural selection just means: what works continues, what doesn’t fades away – no DIRECT intelligent choice required. The atheists are right on that point.

JJ Atheists do not believe life evolved through a natural selection involving intelligent selection through trial and error but that random events created the right circumstances for life to just take off with no intelligence involved at all – a much different thing than Edison and the light bulb. It as a natural selection for Edison to pick the bulb that worked but without intelligence involved a bulb would have never been created that lit up.

Dec 30, 2011 When to Initiate Kelly writes: With regards to these initiates that are mentioned (Lincoln, jesus, Washington, Buddha, etc), I understand that it was in their book of life to come here on earth and initiate. Hence, it must be part of a person’s destiny to initiate, part of their soul plan that is and consequently not just some random happening. Is that correct or can someone initiate something…accidentally?

JJ No work done by an initiate is accidental but some of it is unplanned.

In between lives we do plan our next life. The higher the initiate the more accurate the plan and the greater will be the work. But things do not always go according to plan. Sometimes the work is frustrated and other times it comes out different or even better than expected.

Once the initiate is on the earth and sees his vision and sets his goals the move forward doesn’t happen by accident but through great intelligent effort.

Kelly: And when someone does initiate, is there a time frame like a specific age or Saturn stage or something that connotes this? I know there is the age 21 when a person integrates his soul wisdom and gets to the point where he was at his last life. Then 28 at the first Saturn cycle where a person begins his life work. Then what?

JJ A person can initiate a work at any age where he has developed communication skills. Check out this child who began her initiating work at the age of four:

After the age of 21 and after each Saturn cycle we have an opportunity to move forward our personal development which may or may not have something to do with initiating a project or work.

When you have the skills to initiate then you can begin a work if you are so inclined no matter what your age.

Kelly: Something tells me this initiate thing must be key to having a longer life. You somehow keep your brain cells alive.

JJ Some initiates may die young – such as Steve Jobs, but they will eventually learn the secrets of long life and extended life.

Dec 30, 2011

Re: Natural Selection

Dan: The reason I brought this topic up yet again is because even though the word “selection”, taken literally, implies intelligently weighing two alternatives and then picking one, the term “natural selection” does not.

The word selection in this case was intended METAPHORICALLY by the originator of the term Charles Darwin because he could find no better term. He himself defines it and addresses this literal/metaphorical issue SPECIFICALLY in “The Origin of Species”, saying he uses it in the same way that chemists refer to “affinity” between atoms.

If you bear the true meaning in mind next time you “discuss” evolution with an atheist (as you were in the post I originally quoted), you might have more luck bringing them around – assuming that is your intent.

It just undermines your credibility to insist “Duh, of COURSE natural selection requires intelligence, how can something be selected without someone to select it”. It doesn’t because the metaphorical “selection” that takes place is simply the NATURAL process of “the more appropriate form survives and the one ill equipped fades away”.

JJ I already admitted that my wording needed to be corrected and that you did a good job of pointing out that I was technically incorrect. Why do you keep bring this up when the point has been covered several times? Are you looking for a pound of flesh?

I don’t think we disagree here yet you write as if I am fighting you on this.

We both agree that intelligence in matter causes the natural selection process to work, but atheists do not believe in intelligence in matter and that is the difference.

Also I am writing to believers in intelligent design here. When I talk with atheists I do attempt to speak their language, but it doesn’t do much good as they think that intelligence in matter is crazy talk.

Dan: The natural selection that took place with Edison and the lightbulb had NOTHING to do with him selecting the right materials, the natural selection came in when he turned on the juice and either light came out (it worked) or no light came out (it didn’t work).

Edison selecting/creating each form and then trying them is the intelligence in the system, NOT whether each works or not – whether a form works or not is non-intelligent and up to universal natural law to “determine”.

JJ But if a light bulb turned on in a uninhabited dessert with no intelligence to do any selecting, then it would not be long before the bulb would go out and not seen again for there would be no intelligence to select it. Of course, it is a natural selection to choose a light bulb over a candle but without an intelligence involved the improved selection does not get made.

Entropy is the natural law of the universe unless intelligence comes along and reverses it.

Dec 31, 2011 Re: Natural Selection

JJ wrote: Are you looking for a pound of flesh?

Dan: I don’t know what you are talking about here. A pound of flesh would seem to require a vicious attack which seems a pretty harsh accusation given that I haven’t felt adversarial – until perhaps now 😐 Please point out where I have attacked you or cease the name-calling.

JJ I do not call people names and this was certainly not an attempt at it.

You brought this subject up and I thought I clarified my thoughts. Then you brought it up again as if no clarification had been made and I clarified again. Then the scenario repeated one more time and I thought. What in the world does Dan want – a pound of flesh?

In other words, it seemed you wanted me to cry uncle or something of the sort. I didn’t mean to insult you but to express exasperation with what it is I am supposed to be communicating to you so you will be satisfied.

It appears to me that natural selection in the various conversations falls into two categories and this seems to cause the confusion.

Category One.

(1) Natural selection with no intelligence involved.

Examples: Gravity selects a rock to roll down a hill Rocks that roll the furthest have the jagged edges knocked off and are smoother than stationary ricks.

Heavy elements tend to sink lower in the earth and lighter stay near the surface.

(2) Natural selection with intelligence involved.

This happens when a process, product or innovation occurs that is intelligently judged to be superior to that used in the past. When this happens it is just natural for an intelligent entity to pick the superior item.

For instance a sailboat owner will pick a wind going in the direction he desires and adjust his sails.

Humanity selected Edison’s light bulb because it was better than candlelight.

Humanity selected the automobile over the horse and buggy because of the advantages.

In this second category of natural selection intelligent choice was involved but in the first category it was not.

The second category can cause the development of complex forms, such as the computer chip or DNA and first cannot.

Many atheists disagree. They think the first category can cause complex forms such as DNA to evolve. Believers in intelligent design do not accept this but believe that either the second category applies to creation of life or a personal being called God designed and created all things.

I’d be surprised if we are not on the same page on this because category two runs through my teachings from the beginning and the process is elaborated on in Eternal Words as noted by Adam.

Hope this helps.

Dec 31, 2011

Re: When to Initiate–Akiane and my own art success. Re: Akiane

Ruth: I would assume that if she can fold her physical body up and unfold it again, then she could/would be a Master.

JJ Someone did this for her which is much different than having power to do this according to your own will. Because she was worked with as a child when the spirit is pure she will find it easier to adjust higher energies.

She is definitely a disciple incarnated but doubt she is a master. When we examone her conscious thinking that is not channeled when she is 21 then we can get an idea of her real evolution.

Dec 31, 2011

Re: Natural Selection

Dan: Yes, natural selection is definitely the subject 🙂 Firstly I disagree that it falls into two categories.

JJ That’s because you’re only looking at category one which is only one of the two categories.

Dan: The word “selection” literally requires intelligent choice between options.

In the phrase/term “natural selection”, the word selection is only meant metaphorically – no intelligent choice between options is required, only the operation of natural, universal law.

JJ I realize the take on this but the gravitation of intelligence to natural selection is as predictable as gravity. People will pick staying warm over freezing to death. That is as natural of a selection as a ball rolling down a hill because of gravity.

There are definitely the two categories I mentioned around natural, or default selection.

Dan Natural Selection by intelligence is a nonsensical, self-contradictory use of the term.

JJ I don’t think so.

Dan: Secondly, I disagree that atheists believe that natural selection produces intelligence but rather they, generally speaking, believe that natural selection selecting from amongst random processes of combination/mutation of non-intelligent matter does.

JJ It sounds like you are saying that natural selection does not produce intelligence but then it does.

It is obvious that they believe that natural selection is the prime cause of intelligence. There can be no random processes without natural selection being involved.

Dan Thirdly, I personally do not think that intelligent selection is required to produce intelligence as you seem to think I think 🙂

JJ I do not recall giving my view on this.

Dan: but what I do think is that NATURAL (non-intelligent) selection operating upon inherently intelligent matter will cause it to evolve without any further input of intelligence being necessary.

JJ I think we agree here. Book 4 elaborates on this.

Dan: I could go for “default selection” but it sounds like you are quibbling over proper use of words rather than the concept BEHIND the words as you have admonished others against over the years.

JJ I commented on the meaning of the words because you brought the subject up and it was necessary we speak the same language.

Dec 31. 2011

Re: Natural Selection

JJ wrote: People will pick staying warm over freezing to death.

That is as natural of a selection as a ball rolling down a hill because of gravity.

Dan: Yep, the first is an example of (intelligent) selection but is not what the biologist (ahteist or not) is referring to when he uses the term “natural selection”.

JJ I know. When natural selection is used in connection with atheistic evolution then they claim no intelligence is involved. But as far as the basic principle of natural selection is involved there are the two categories. Not all scientists who believe in evolution are atheists and many believe that intelligence is involved.

Dan And yep, the second is an example of the type of non-intelligent process that biologists refer to by the term “natural selection” – it happens without any intelligence choice involved. Universal law (specifically gravity) takes care of rolling the ball down to the bottom of the hill.

JJ Agreed. We’ve covered this.

Dan And yes, I agree with you that BOTH are natural to our universe, but ONLY the second is what evolutionary biologists refer to by the term/call “natural selection” they call the other type “artificial selection”.

JJ Many scientists who believe in God believe that intelligence is involved in evolution.

JJ replied: It sounds like you are saying that natural selection does not produce intelligence but then it does.

Dan: Atheists appear to think that atoms will bump against each other by what they nebulously (and variously) refer to as “random processes” and then the action of universal law causes some atoms to stick together and some not (which process they call natural selection) and this will eventually lead to intelligence (us).

JJ Again it sounds like you agree that atheists scientists believe that natural selection creates intelligence.

Dan: Let me say it again a different way:

Atheists do not believe that natural selection ALONE leads to intelligence, they think various vaguely defined “random processes” under the ADDITIONAL impulse of what they call “natural selection” will eventually lead to intelligence.

JJ Still sounds like you are saying the same thing. Natural selection selects from random events and creates intelligence. The selection from events is what created intelligence just as I have been saying the atheists believe.

We are usually on the same page 95% of the time. I think we are here but the semantics sometimes gets in the way.

Whatever the case, sorry for my part in the confusion and Happy New Year.


Copyright 2011 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

(You do not have to log in to add comments)

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go Here

Keys Writings, Part 19

This entry is part 33 of 34 in the series 2011C

Nov 20, 2011
Immortal Books on Kindle
I have added my three books in The Immortal series to Amazon’s Kindle and will add more soon.

Here are the links:

The Immortal

The Lost Key of the Buddha

Eternal Words

Nov 20, 2011
A Second Test
As you know a few weeks ago scientists measured some neutrinos going faster than the speed of light. This astonished the scientific world as they thought that such a thing was impossible for a particle to do. They recently conducted some more tests and have received the same confirmation. Now they are beside themselves trying to explain what happened.

To add to this mystery they have measured the speed of neutrinos from the supernova SN1987A, which lies about 168,000 light years from Earth. The result was that photons and neutrinos that traveled such great distance arrived at virtually the same time. Both of them seemed to travel at the speed of light together.

In this latest experiment they didn’t send the neutrinos through space, but through the earth from Cern to the Gran Sasso lab in Italy 450 miles away. Now you would think that going through solid earth would slow them down more than going through space, but instead they sped up.

Now don’t go thinking they greatly exceeded the speed of light for they only arrived 60 billionths of a second early. To draw a comparison – imagine the speed of light being 100 MPH. These neutrinos only exceeded that speed by going 100.002 MPH.

Scientists are coming up with all kinds of theories. The best I have heard is that what we though of as being the ultimate speed a particle could go is incorrect because light going through space is not going through a true vacuum but is slightly slowed down by matter (known and unknown) in space itself. Somehow these neutrinos going through the earth encountered less friction than they would have going through space.

Whatever the case it is great to see real science at work unlike what happens in global warming science. If the Cern people were to use the global warming mindset they would merely say the consensus is the speed of light cannot be broken so this cannot be true; therefore, they are not even going to perform further experiments in this direction.

Nov 20, 2011
Re: A Second Test
lwk Actually if the scientists were using the “global warming mindset,” there would probably be a rush to blames a rise in the speed of light on an increase in light emitted by human beings on the planet and a demand to go back to candles which don’t endanger the environmentally correct speed of light. 🙂

JJ Good point Larry. On top of that, people like you and me who are open to the speed of light being broken would be called, “speed of light deniers,” or maybe “Einstein haters.”

Nov 21, 2011
Re: A Second Test

Tom: What initiative was Einstein? Had he been a 3rd he would have seen the errors in his idea that nothing can travel faster than light.

JJ A third degree initiate is far from omniscient and infallible. Even the highest of initiates. masters and gods have their limitations and do not see and understand all things. A third degree initiate can dispel illusion provided he has the necessary facts available and focuses his attention on the subject where the illusion resides. For instance, such an initiate may have not placed much attention on global warming because many other matters occupy his mind. Consequently, he doesn’t have a strong opinion one way or another. Finally, something stimulates his interest and he decides to look into it. Once he studies the available data he then unravels the illusion surrounding the subject and hones into the truth of the matter.

I would guess that Einstein was a very savvy second degree. The reason I do not peg him at third degree is that he was agnostic about God and a third degree would have experiences that should have removed all doubt.

I believe that Newton was a third degree as he was a very spiritual scientist and spent much of his life unraveling the mysteries of the works of God.

Nov 23, 2011
Letter to Editor
I thought the comparison of global warming scientists to those at Cern was interesting so I wrote a letter to my local paper on the subject. Here it is:

Dear Editor:

If you want to see some real scientists at work who follow the true scientific method then one should follow the scientists at Cern.

Instead of just declaring that traditional science is settled they are approaching even the most orthodox scientific conclusions with a skeptical mind. In two separate experiments now they have dispelled the sacred cow of the speed of light and clocked neutrinos going faster than light.

Even though this turns the laws of physics and Einstein’s theories on their heads they are proceeding with experiments simply because they want to know the truth.

Can you imagine the situation if the politically polarized global warming scientists were to approach the Cern scientists – we’d hear statements like:

“There is powerful consensus that the speed of light cannot be broken so this is a waste of time.”

“You are speed of light deniers and Einstein haters.”

“You guys are like flat-earthers because you will not accept settled science.”

These real Cern scientists have presented strong evidence that the effect of cosmic rays on clouds account for over half the warming in the past century but the flat-earth type global warmers will not even consider the study.

Nov 22, 2011
Einstein and God

Not all Jews believe the same. Here was Einstein’s response to some religious questions: Do you believe in God? “I’m not an atheist. I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws.”

Is this a Jewish concept of God? “I am a determinist. I do not believe in free will. Jews believe in free will. They believe that man shapes his own life. I reject that doctrine. In that respect I am not a Jew.”

Is this Spinoza’s God? “I am fascinated by Spinoza’s pantheism, but I admire even more his contribution to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and body as one, and not two separate things.”

Do you believe in immortality? “No. And one life is enough for me.”

See Einstein & God


Nov 23, 2011
Steve Jobs
I recently finished the biography on Steve Jobs by Walter Isaacson. It was perhaps the best biography I gave ever read. The only others I can compare with it as being interesting were ones I have read on Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill and Mao. “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” was also very good, but was not written as a biography on Hitler

The book I liked on Mao was called, Mao: The Unknown Story By Jung Chang Jon Halliday. This was good because it was a great story of a tyrant not because Mao was a good guy.

Jobs had the feeling from the time he was young that he would die early so his whole life was a crash course to get as many things done as possible before that event happened.

When it became obvious the end was near he had the foresight to contact one of the best biographical writers and talk him into writing his story. Isaacson thus conducted interviews right up until the end and thus had lots of first hand material from direct interviews. Even so, the reader can tell that he did not use these interviews as a crutch for he obviously interviewed many people associated with Jobs as well as researching everything published about him. There are a few things on which he could have gone into greater detail but overall he did an excellent job. The book reads with the intrigue of a Dan Brown novel.

The big question that this group may have concerning Jobs is, was he an initiate and how advanced?

First, he was definitely an initiate for he never stopped initiating new things right up to the last days of his life.

He initiated the desktop computer and then the mouse and windows type operating system that was used in the Mac and copied by Microsoft. After he was fired from Apple he did not rest but began a cutting edge animation company, Pixar, which initiated new technology that revolutionized children’s movies.

In desperation, as Apple was about to go under, they wooed Jobs back to Apple. He came back and worked for a dollar a year for the first couple years.

The first thing he did when he came back was to trash two thirds of the Apple models to the ash heap of history and start fresh working on new innovating models. Shortly thereafter, they came out with the iMac which finally turned sales around. The next big leap was the ipod which they advertized as “1000 songs in your pocket.” This was an amazing breakthrough when you consider than the competitors could only manage a handful of songs on a portable device.

He didn’t stop there and soon the ipod type gizmos could manage your photos, play movies, take pictures, record movies and on and on.

Then he realized that the life of the ipod would come to an end in a few years and be replaced by a phone with all these abilities built in. He thus switched attention in this direction and created the iphone.

Next was the ipad. When this was introduced critics said it would never sell much because it was so expensive and netbooks was the future, but of course they were wrong.

Near his death he realized that television as we know it was coming to an end and worked on creating a home entertainment system that access all shows produced through the internet on demand and replace cable and satellite systems. Apple will yet reveal his last innovation.

He was a vegetarian throughout his life and experimented with a number of diets including the Mucusless Diet System. Many initiates are vegetarians, especially the first and second degree.

Throughout his life he pondered the mysteries of existence and life after death. Some of his favorite books dealt with metaphysics such as,

Shunryu Suzuki, Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind Paramahansa Yogananda, Autobiography of a Yogi Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism, Chogyam Trungpa’s Be Here Now, Baba Ram Dass

He wasn’t positive there was an afterlife, but hoped there was one. He represented that hope by making Apple products that had no off switch. He hoped that we as humans had no off switch when we died.

He seemed to receive his answer about life after death at the point of his departure. Just before he passed he looked beyond those gathered around him and said three times: OH WOW! After this he died.

It was quite possible that he was entering his third initiation experience with the Angel of the Presence.

Many wonder why he got cancer when he was on a vegetarian diet. There are several reasons that could be.

First, many vegetarian diets are not as healthy as a quality meat eating diet is. He was on numerous diet programs throughout his life rather than sticking to one consistent good one. It’s quite possible he had an overbalance of carbohydrates and starches. It’s also possible that he received too many chemicals that were not removed from vegetables.

One sign that something was wrong with his diet was that people often complained of his body odor. A proper diet should not generate that complaint.

A person can get cancer even with a good diet. Grievance and suppression is a major cause here and Steve suffered great hurt when he was fired from Apple. He seemed to have a real grievance toward John Scully who replaced him. Then watching powerlessly as they degraded his company was too much to bear.

It sounds like Steve was never able to let this and possibly other grievances go until possibly near the end of his life.

These are a few comments not found in standard reviews. I would suggest you go to Amazon, read several reviews and buy the book or audio. You will not be disappointed.

Nov 24, 2011
Re: Steve Jobs

Art: I am a little surprised that this autobiography seemed to paint him is such a good light.

I had read that he was notorious for absolutely humiliating his staff for the slightest misstep and was very difficult to work for.

JJ Actually Isaacson painted a whole picture of Jobs warts and all. This is what Steve wanted and gave him full power to write with no power of revision or dictating on his part. Steve said that he probably wouldn’t like parts of the book so he never planned on reading it. Quite a number of times he does come across as a jerk, but no sooner does that happen then you start to like him again and wish you could have met him.

The author does point out how difficult Steve was to work for but also notes how dedicated employees were to him and how many were willing to sacrifice anything to share in the achievements of the work. I liked one section where Isaacson compared Steve Jobs to Moses in the eyes of his admirers.

Ruth: If he was entering his 3rd initiation experience, then this was happening as he physically died?

JJ It would mean he entered the threshold of the Angel of the Presence as he was crossing over.

Ruth Does this mean that the Dweller was the cancer/disease that was killing him,

JJ The Dweller could have aggravated the cancer, but the cancer was not the dweller.

Ruth: and then as he started to pass over, he chose the Angel of the Presence and hence got to pass his 3rd initiation? At death, how would he chose between the Dweller or the Angel?

JJ No one chooses the Dweller. Why would you choose something that is trying to destroy you? You do, however, accept or reject the Angel of the Presence and whatever it was that Steve encountered at death he seemed to embrace it.

Ruth: For example, if he chose the Dweller, he wasn’t choosing life, because he was already nearly dead,

JJ As I said, no one chooses the dweller. Who would choose to hold their hand on a hot stove???

Ruth: so if he chose the Angel of the Presence, he was really choosing the only option which was Life after a physical death, but he would not have realized this as he passed over? It is interesting because I have only read about how one passes the 3rd initiation while still alive.

JJ More often than not the initiations are acknowledged, consummated and understood between lives. When initiations are relived in a certain life this usually happens on the physical plane. All the growth and advancement to achieve initiation must be achieved in the physical. Often (but not always) the actual initiation happens between lives.

Nov 28, 2011
What is an Initiate?
Previous post: John C If by “initiate” you mean “invent”…

JJ No. That is a million miles away from what I have taught about initiation.

Many investors have no power to initiate that which they invent. An initiate introduces and secures ideas into public consciousness and use. No one knows who invented the mouse, but Jobs introduced it to public use and consciousness. This is a much more difficult thing to do than to invent a thing. Columbus was not the first to discover America, but he initiated the great exploration. Like they say. Ideas are a dime a dozen, but making something of them is the greater work. I’ll write more on this shortly.

Current Post:

John C Then, this is closer to the definition of “innovation” that I gave in my post. I hope you will write more on this subject. I think there is a lot of misunderstanding about this topic, even though much has already been written about it.

JJ The word “innovation” doesn’t really describe the initiate either. To be an innovator and inventor are two very similar things.

Let me give two examples of innovative thinkers. Ben works for Acme manufacturing and gets an idea that would save six steps in the manufacturing process. He tells his boss about it but he doesn’t see the vision and brushes him off. Ben then goes to the next guy up the ladder but gets chewed out for going over his bosses head.

Ben is frustrated and spends the rest of his days grumbling that no one listens to him.

Chuck goes through the same process with his company and reaches the same dead end. Instead of accepting his fate, one day he puts down his remote and does some thinking. He realizes that there are a lot of companies that could use his innovations. He then sets up a consulting company and contacts numerous other manufacturers that could benefit from his thinking. A handful accept his proposals. Then, after a period of success, many companies, even Acme, make changes proposed by Chuck.

When Ben sees Chuck’s success he feels cheated and thinks to himself that he had these ideas first and no one gives him any credit.

So… is Ben initiating just because he came up with good innovations?

Obviously not. Chuck is the true initiate here because he is the driving force that pushed the ideas into existence.

Most of what Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, or even Einstein introduced was already dreamed up by someone else but these men initiated new products and concepts into the public consciousness that others merely dreamed about.

Perhaps we could define an initiate this way:

An initiate is one who sees a better way and does more than dream about manifesting it but takes the necessary steps to bring it into existence. An initiate is one with true faith as I have previously defined the word.

Here are examples of initiates and non initiates.

Initiate: Columbus discovers America and changes the world.

Non Initiate: A Chinese captain discovers America long before Columbus, but nothing changed.

Initiate: Colonel Sanders has an unique chicken recipe that changes the chicken industry.

Non Initiate: Aunt Martha has an even better recipe but it dies with her.

Initiate: Steve Jobs successfully brings the desktop computers to the market.

Non Initiate: Even before this Steve Nebulous builds his own desktop from spare parts and amuses his friends with it.

Initiate: H. P. Blavatsky writes a book that changes the way many people think.

Non Initiate: Yogi Sahara writes an even better book but he never gets it published and no one reads it or knows that it exists.

Initiate: Sam sees the value in an innovative idea being introduced by an initiate, sees a way to help the idea blossom and lends a helping hand.

Non Initiate: Bart sees the value in an innovative idea being introduced by an initiate and becomes an armchair quarterback and critic.

John C on Steve Jobs: The man was not a saint. Let’s not paint him as such. There were some negative aspects to his personality. But, some of those negatives were also positives.

JJ It’s important to realize that there is a big difference between the public idea of a saint or holy person and a true initiate. Many initiates are not religious or pious at all. Many of them have difficult personalities and are hated by numerous people.

There is a wide variety of people among the aspirants and first and second degree initiates. Some are impossible to live with and have many enemies. Many are seen as being the opposite of spiritual.

The higher initiates have generally worked off the rough edges but remember that even Jesus was hated so much that he was gleefully crucified.

Nov 29, 2011
Tom’s Questions
Tom Did Steve Jobs have control and master his emotions in order to pass the 2nd initiation before doing the third?

JJ If he passed the second then he did master his emotions but let me clarify what that means.

First, it does not mean that the initiate is like Spock who has little or no emotion. The initiate will have more powerful emotions than average because all the petals in his sacral center will be unfolded.

The initiate may very well express strong emotion from time to time but the emotion expressed is regulated and decided upon mentally. The most important thing a second degree or higher will do is not make important decisions based on emotion but upon what makes sense from rational or intuitive thinking.

I think it was you that asked about the origin of the giants mentioned in the Bible. I haven’t placed much attention on. Many people think they are a product of angels and humans.

Here are some comments of H P Blavatsky from Isis Unveiled:

According to the claims of the Babylonian priests, corroborated by Eupolemus,*** “the city of Babylon, owes its foundation to those who were saved from the catastrophe of the deluge; they were the giants and they built the tower which is noticed in history.”**** These giants who were great astrologers and had received moreover from their fathers, “the sons of God,” every instruction pertaining to secret matters, instructed the priests in their turn, and left in the temples all the records of the periodical cataclysm that they had witnessed themselves. This is how the high priests came by the knowledge of the great years.

“And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. . . . There were giants in the earth in those days,” etc., with this part of the Hindu cosmogony, in the Vedas, which speaks of the descent of the Brahmans. The first Brahman complains of being alone among all his brethren without a wife. Notwithstanding that the Eternal advises him to devote his days solely to the study of the Sacred Knowledge (Veda), the first-born of mankind insists. Provoked at such ingratitude, the eternal gave Brahman a wife of the race of the Daints, or giants, from whom all the Brahmans maternally descend. Thus the entire Hindu priesthood is descended, on the one hand, from the superior spirits (the sons of God), and from Daintany, a daughter of the earthly giants, the primitive men.* “And they bare children to them; the same became mighty men which were of old; men of renown.”** The same is found in the Scandinavian cosmogonical fragment. In the Edda is given the description to Gangler by Har, one of the three informants (Har, Jafuhar, and Tredi) of the first man, called Bur, “the father of Bor, who took for wife Besla, a daughter of the giant Bolthara, of the race of the primitive giants.” The full and interesting narrative may be found in the Prose Edda, sects. 4-8, in Mallett’s Northern Antiquities.** The same groundwork underlies the Grecian fables about the Titans; and may be found in the legend of the Mexicans –

She also claimed to see bones of giants when she was in India.

You can read more HERE

Here is an interesting video series on the subject:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6


Nov 30, 2011
Re: What is an Initiate?

John C “Saint” was just an expression. I forgot you literally you take things when you want to. By “saint”, here I meant the unbalanced portrayal of only the positive qualities of a person. That’s what I said in my first paragraph that you quoted.

JJ I think I understood you correctly, John. I do not know anyone who thinks of Jobs as a religious holy man. You said, “The man was not a saint. Let’s not paint him as such.”

You were obviously implying that someone here was implying (I do not know who) that Jobs was a very good person who could do no (or little) wrong. That is very close to the religious idea of a saint.

My point was that initiates are far from perfect especially as far as the personality goes and that was an accurate response to your comment.

John C Remember all those numbers Creme and Dewey were placing on initiates? This may be important, but all I am saying is it didn’t interest me then and it doesn’t interest me now.

JJ That’s fine that you are not interested but you are coming across a little preachy here like we shouldn’t be interested either. It is a topic of great interest to many and there is nothing wrong with such interest.

My comments on the possible initiate status of some is a million miles from Cremes. Crème claims to have received his information directly from Christ and I make no such claim to authority but am making an educated guess.

The reason I talked about the possible initiate status of Jobs wasn’t to show my cleverness but to give readers a better idea of what an initiate is and the range of people that fit into this category. Many people think of an initiate as a very good or holy person who exudes love all the time and I wanted to make sure readers understand that many do not come across this way.

John C I can identify much more readily with his technical partner Steve Wozniak. Always two there are: one who is the front man, and the one who works behind the scenes and makes things happen.

JJ Steve collaborated with Wozniak mainly at the beginning. There were many innovations from Apple that Wozniak did not participate in. Wozniak was smart but he had little inclination to take any steps to initiate anything. If Steve did not have Wozniak available he would have found someone else, but any engineer looking for another Jobs would still be looking.

Nov 30, 2011

Saint Bernadette

Ruth asked about an apparent miracle of the preservation of Saint Bernadette’s body. Here is the story

JJ The miracle is not as impressive as the links leads one to believe. Apparently her body was preserved beyond the normal decay but still did decay nevertheless and had to be treated with wax to make her look lifelike. this is from Wikipedia:

In 1925, the church exhumed the body for a third time. They took relics, which were sent to Rome. A precise imprint of the face was molded so that the firm of Pierre Imans in Paris could make a wax mask based on the imprints and on some genuine photos. This was common practice for relics in France, as it was feared that the blackish tinge to the face and the sunken eyes and nose would make an unpleasant impression on the public. Imprints of the hands were also taken for the presentation of the body and the making of wax casts. The remains were then placed in a gold and crystal reliquary in the Chapel of Saint Bernadette at the mother house in Nevers. The site is visited by many pilgrims and the body of Saint Bernadette is still shown despite being nearly 130 years old.

Wiki Link

Dec 1, 2011
Re: What is an Initiate?

Kelly writes: This whole thread on what is an initiate got me rethinking on the subject of disciple and initiate. So to understand correctly, an initiate is necessarily a disciple but not the other way around?

JJ Actually, it is the other way around. A truly committed disciple is one who is near or passed the third initiation and all of them are initiates to some degree. DK identifies seekers who are not disciples as aspirants.

DK told us back in the 1920s there were only a little over 300 disciples on the entire planet. One can only guess how many there are to day but it would not be a large number.

There are a lot of initiates who are not disciples and do not consider themselves being on a spiritual path. What many of these do not realize is that all work that helps humanity evolve and progress is spiritual. There are initiates in science, education, sports, politics and various endeavors not normally seen as spiritual.

Kelly: Is it correct to say that an initiate will be a disciple first and foremost before getting to the stage where he or she actually initiates something?

JJ The first thing on an initiates mind is “What can I do to improve the world or the human condition?”

Kelly: And does an initiate always have to turn out to be a ”popular person” in the press or worldwide?

JJ Good question. It may seem so because when people try and identify initiates usually famous people are named. The reason for this is that initiates that are not famous are generally not known to us and there is no way to name them.

Higher initiates usually make significant accomplishments that garners then some degree of public recognition but many first and second degree initiates are unknown outside of their circle of associates. Many of these are initiating things that does not change the world but does create positive change and improves peoples lives. Some join with other initiates to work on a group endeavor. For instance, I’m sure there were a number of initiates who worked with Steve Jobs.

Kelly: I read something not long ago (I believe it was one of Ruth’s posts) from DK stating that there will also be times where initiates must act behind the stage so to speak and without receiving all that recognition attention i.e.: like Steve Jobs did.

JJ This will sometimes be the case. If a person initiates by working behind the scenes and is truly responsible for creating constructive change then he is of course initiating.

Kelly: And speaking about initiates, how may are there on earth at the present moment? I imagine there can’t be that many since it is a demanding endeavour and a lot of times there must be failures too.

JJ I’d say that there are millions who have passed the first initiation, hundreds of thousands who have passed the second, under 1000 who have passed the third and under 50 in mortality who have passed the fourth.

Dec 1, 2011
Re: What is an Initiate?

Tom How many masters have there been that lived on the Earth, in the flesh throughout history of the Earth?

JJ DK names Twelve plus the Christ who work directly with humanity but there are others who work with other kingdoms and projects. The total number is not given. Maybe DK will give more information when he teaches again after 2025. We should prepare a list of questions for him. Of course, when that date arrives there will be many who will claim to speak for the real DK. It will be an interesting process finding the real one.


Copyright 2011 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

(You do not have to log in to add comments)

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go Here

Keys Writings, Part 18

This entry is part 32 of 34 in the series 2011C

Nov 2, 2011
 Re: Morals and Legality

Blayne: Might does not make right or legal. That is essentially your argument;

JJ You’re only half right. I am saying that might does not make right, but might does create what is judged to be legal by Constitutional authorities.

Blayne: I wonder if the congress ever passed a law like I described that it was okay for congressmen and judges to rape any woman at will would that inspire the majority to stand up and say no that is illegal and even take up arms to enforce the majority will if necessary?

JJ They haven’t passed anything that outrageous but they have passed laws that so offended public consciousness that the people have forced change. The Kansas-Nebraska Act expanding slavery caused extreme outrage. The Jim Crow laws motivated Martin Luther king to lead millions of black and whites to support repealing them. Woman rebelled against the Constitution rejecting their right to vote as well as other laws preventing them from having control over their own property. Obamacare is certainly causing a lot of people to object and has fueled the Tea Party.

In Boise many years ago they passed a law that it is illegal to fish from a giraffe’s neck. That didn’t seem to have any teeth. I’m not sure if that was someone’s version of moral natural law or what.

Nov 3, 2011
Happy birthday Keysters

Last weekend marks the 13th anniversary of the Keys of Knowledge group. The group entity is now a teenager. Rick

JJ Time flies when you are having fun. I’m glad you nudged me into doing this ahead of my personal schedule.

Nov 3, 2011
Re: Morals and Legality

Using a definition of words that does not match the mainstream use changes nothing, but if we change the accepted laws which may not be just then we have accomplished something.

It doesn’t matter that much how words are defined. What matters is how we use those words to communicate.

LWK In our system a legislative act that passes the required steps is in fact the law unless challenged and overturned by the courts. I don’t see any other practical way to do it. One can say “illegal” all one wants but it is the law if passed unless challenged and overturned.

JJ I would guess that about 99% of the people would agree with you on this Larry s well as the Founding Fathers.

Blayne: Might does not make legal.

JJ Might has determined what is legal since the beginning of time. What makes you think otherwise????

Just because you or I think something should be doesn’t mean that’s the way it is.

Nov 3, 2011
Re: The First Point 101

Duke: I wonder which side they (the South) would have taken in World War Two, and whether that would have tipped the scales.

JJ There’s no way to know for sure but I would say there is at least a 50/50 chance they would have supported Germany. especially if they still had a grudge against the North and they were supporting the Allies.

Apologists think that slavery would have died a natural death within a few years, but I do not think so. The South was working to expand it to the West, Cuba and Central America. It was so embedded I don’t think they would have given it up without a fight.

Nov 4, 2011
 Re: Morals and Legality

Blayne: Not true people have also practiced right actions or what’s legal without being forced since the beginning of time too.

JJ What people practice has absolutely nothing to do with determining what is legal. Even the most virtuous of laws can only be made and enforced through the might of the government. If there is no penalty attached then the law has no power. I myself, virtuous guy that I am, would go over 40 MPH in most 20 MPH zones if it were not for a possible penalty.

Blayne: Just because some circumstance the way it is does not make it legal.

JJ Because you are attached to only one definition of legal (even though there are several in the dictionary) this makes it almost impossible to communicate with you about law. You stick to your extreme minority definition and will not speak the sane language as others do here concerning legality or see where they are coming from.

It is a fact that you ignore that the powers-that-be determine what is legal and not your own version of what is moral.. Thank God, for if we let everyone do that we could have slavery again for half the country used to think that was a natural right.

Blayne: According to your logic if the local Mafia forces you to pay protection money or be harmed that makes it legal. After all that is the way it is…

JJ I’ve already dealt with this reasoning. The Mafia has no constitutional power to make or enforce law. But if they did control the government then what they passed would be legal.

Nov 4, 2011
 Cool Topic

Perhaps I can illustrate the communication problem we have with Blayne on laws and legal if I illustrate with a different word. We’ll use the word “cool.”

Jim: That’s a cool song.

Bob: You’re wrong. Cool means a low temperature and a song has no temperature. It cannot be cool.

Jim: But there’s more than one definition of cool. I’m not talking about temperature. I’m saying that was a good song.

Bob: But cool, hot and cold can only be measured in degrees. A thing has to have natural form and mass to be cool. A song has neither.

Jim: You’re not listening. I’m not talking about cool as related to temperature but to the quality of a thing.

Bob: But cool is always related to temperature.

Jim: Where do you get that idea?

Bob: That was the original meaning. Any change of the meaning is just a corruption.

Jim sighs…

Even so, what is called natural moral law is as different from the legalities necessary to legally execute Awlaki as the two definitions of cool.

When I asked if it was legal I wasn’t asking if it conformed to your version of what is moral nor was I referencing anyone elses version of morality but merely a legality that would be accepted in a current court of law.

Nov 5, 2011

This Awlaki discussion has probably run its course. We could continue dissecting but the point has been made. And what was that?

Remember that we began this discussion to illustrate two things.

(1) How difficult it is to resolve communication problems through the Internet. It is bad enough in person but here the process is much slower and sometimes sluggish. The one advantage is we can access facts through the Internet and take the time to sift through them as the discussion moves forward.

(2) The difficulty in reaching union when there is a strong disagreement. When we attempt to create a molecule it is important we approach it realistically. By examining this disagreement and others in the past I think we can see what we are up against in getting a group of 24 or more to reach the union necessary to achieve group soul contact.

I was hoping to get this disagreement to the point where we could narrow the focus down to a principle so we could attempt to reach union through the soul, but we haven’t come close to this.

Instead we got stuck on the definition of words which is about a million miles from finding the principles involved. The soul has no interest whatsoever in how society determines their terms, but how words, however they are defined, are used in dealing with principles.

If you can get down to the principles involved in an argument two or more sensitive people can reach harmony through the soul.

The first molecule will have to be composed of people who have been tested in group activity and are in basic harmony with each other on core principles and attitude toward life.

Here is a brief assessment of the Anwar Al-Awlaki case.

Was the assassination legal? The evidence seems to indicate it was but there are dissenters. The ACLU is going to file a lawsuit and if it goes to trial a final legality will be decided.

Is Awlaki guilty of a crime?

There are enough of his own words and witnesses to his words to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he is an enemy to the United States and is likely guilty of treason.

Did Obama do the right thing in taking Awlaki out?

I think we should take out all the active enemies of this country that we can but the fact that he was an American citizen made the situation problematic and should have been handled differently. They should have first revoked his American citizenship, made the details of his crimes available to Congress and the people and then taken him out.

Nov 5, 2011
 Re: Blayne’s Blindspot

Blayne:  … as long as [The Constitution] is the law the federal government is supposed to follow it sure would be nice if they actually followed it…

LWK I absolutely agree with that idea.It is kind of useless to have a “law of the land” that in many instances is largely ignored or twisted in interpretation into something entirely different.

Perhaps this highlights a mistake that the Founders made. It was their intention to make it difficult to change the Constitution and therefore the amendment process is very difficult, and impeaching judges who largely ignore it is similarly difficult. It might have been easier for the government to adhere to a Constitution and replace errant judges who blatantly misinterpret it if it weren’t quite to hard to change in the first place.

JJ Good points Larry. If there is some law our representatives do not like they will just ignore it whether it be in the Constitution or some law passed through Congress. Illegal aliens is typical. There are plenty of laws on the books that would take care of the problem if enforced but their solution is to just create more laws.

There’s still a law saying we can’t fish from a giraffe’s neck here in Boise, but no one is stopping anyone from doing it. They are ignoring that law!

Nov 5, 2011
 Re: laissez faire thought experiment

Putting thieves and rapists in jail does not interfere with the workings of karma but enhances it. It secures the rights for those with good karma so they can live in freedom as they deserve. As far as payback for bad karma goes – if they can’t get it here there are hellholes like North Korea and Afghanistan reserved to take care of lots of negative karma various entities have accumulated.

The enhanced karma I was talking about is the good karma. That takes some law and order to secure for the just. There’s always plenty of opportunity for the bad guys to receive their just due – that is until Zion is established.

Natalie: When Zion is established what will happen to those “bad guys” who have not yet received their just due?

JJ As we move toward a more peaceable society with less violence and tyranny there will be fewer opportunities for those with a cruel or selfish nature to pay off their karma and many of these will not be able to incarnate. As a result of a better situation more people with good karma will incarnate causing society to improve.

Don’t worry about the bad guys though for they will eventually get another chance.

Nov 6, 2011
 Thoughts on Oneness

I’ve been contemplating the unresolved differences we have had lately and have some thoughts to share.

The question that might arise in these discussions, not only with Blayne, but others in the past is this.

How is it that any two sincere seekers cannot resolve their differences when both have had a degree of soul contact in the past?

The answer is this. The language of the soul is the language of principles. To resolve differences you have to distil away the non-essentials until you are left with the pure language of principles. It is then that differences can be resolved.

To understand this let us examine the principles involved in the argument that I (and others) have had with Blayne.

(1) The Principle of Freedom. This relates to decisions, actions, plans, procedures, laws, etc that bring the greatest amount of freedom to the largest possible number of people.

I believe that Blayne and I both heartily accept this principle.

(2) Laws are a branch under the Principle of Order, which are under the Principle of Creation. Just laws should therefore enhance order and creativity, or life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Some laws made and accepted by man conform to true principles and some do not.

(3) The Principle of Justice. I believe that both Blayne and I accept this and want it to prevail.

(4) The Principle of Judgment. Good judgment is necessary in the creating and application of law as they apply to humanity

I think that Blayne and I agree on these basic principles and if we had a discussion just dealing with them we would most likely be in harmony and open to group soul contact. So what causes the actual differences then?

The problem arises when we take our focus off true principles and put them on details that are not principles.

The biggest detail that has been a problem is the definition of “legal.”

The reason that arguing over definitions is a lost cause is that they have nothing to do with any of the principles of the argument. Instead, words can be used in any language with any definition to communicate true principles.  Communication of principles is not dependent on how words are defined. If it were one could never explain a principle in French or Spanish as all the words are different there.

Every time I have had an augment with someone who reverts to the dictionary or some other source to prove the meaning of words I know the argument is going nowhere.

On the other hand, every time that I have been in harmony with someone there is never a need to define a word to prove anything.


Because two people touching the soul together can understand each other and sense the meaning of the communication even if some of the words may not seem to be used exactly right.

When Jesus said “destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up” his enemies thought he was referring to the temple in Jerusalem, but those closest to him knew he was speaking of his body.

When we are close to someone and tune into them then we will know what they mean even if they use words differently than we personally define them.

Now Blayne thinks a law is not legal if it does nor conform to the morality of natural law. That’s fine and I accept that he thinks this way.

The problem is the question was not related to this definition but to how the legal system of today defines legal. When a judge, police officer or attorney uses the word “legal” he means something different than Blayne does. Since Blayne does not seem to recognize legal by the common use today (and this is what the discussion was supposed to be about) we had a huge communication gap.

The gaps create the illusion that we disagree on principles when we do not.

Maybe I should have asked Blayne something like this. “Was Obama’s action legal as seen though this corrupt system where everything is going to hell in a handbasket?”

Maybe that would have worked.

Anyway the key to union is to tune into each other so true communication can be established.

Note to Duke: You asked a good question. I’ll deal with it shortly.

Nov 7, 2011
 The Two Definitions

Re: Jefferson’s inspiring wording

Larry, my friend. Your feelings seemed to be hurt over something. I don’t think that anyone had any intention of hurting you. All of us regulars seem to take turns being fiercely disagreed with at one time or another, but that does not mean that anyone is showing disrespect.

We want to have an atmosphere where all are free to speak their minds as long as they remain fairly civil.

As far as this problem with Jefferson and principles go, there seems to be some miscommunication going on. I don’t think we will disagree when we understand each other.

Dan quoted JJ, “He (JJ) says that Jefferson’s version is “true on the level that he meant to communicate them” (emotionally inspiring) and then winds it all up by saying Jefferson’s version is “more inspiring than the TECHNICAL TRUTH”.”

Larry Woods says,

JJ is inconsistent here.

JJ To be inconsistent I would have to teach one thing at one time and then something contrary another time. I do not see where this happened in anything you are referring to.

Larry ALL principles are pure and pristine on the intuitive plane. But when we bring them down to the three worlds of form they get messy.

JJ You’re making my point, though I would use the word “obscured,” or something to that effect. The person understanding a principle can put it in the clearest possible language yet there are still many that will not understand most of it. Principles are the language of the soul and can only be communicated in fullness through the soul.

Larry Dan points out that JJ offered two “real world” alternative wordings for Jefferson’s statement of the underlying principles of good law. Dan also points out that JJ said Jefferson was not technically correct because his famous Declaration wording does not cover all aspects of practical use (all the exceptions) where these principles run into messy problems in the worlds of form. However, the same can be said of ALL PRINCIPLES, including all the principles JJ teaches.

JJ Yes, just about all principles as taught to humankind are not technically, or literally, correct as taught by anyone. That is one of the weaknesses of human communication. This reality should not bother any seeker, but should encourage him to look to the soul of messages more than the exact meaning of the individual words.

Larry Using JJ’s technical correct doctrine that he applies to say Jefferson was wrong will shoot down everything that every human ever taught about higher truth.

JJ Where do you get such an idea? Words describing or using a principle merely point the way to truth, but rarely reveal the whole truth of a principle. I do not believe that Jefferson was wrong, but he was extremely correct in wording the Declaration the way he did. Sure he could have worded it differently and been more wordy to make sure he wasn’t misunderstood, but the soul of the message would have been lost.

Larry JJ seems to be saying that articulating ideal truth from the higher realm of Intuition is always incorrect because those truths always run into exceptions when expressed in the lower three worlds of form,

JJ You totally misunderstand me here as I have not in the past or the present said such things. There are no exceptions to truth as I have said many times, “the truth is true and nothing else is true.” There are no exceptions to principles. They are what they are.

What I have said there are exceptions to man made rules, laws, procedures and courses of action. One can never set a course that will be right all the time and a principle lies behind this interesting fact.

Larry it’s like he is saying truth is not technically correct.

JJ Where are you getting this? The way we all attempt to express truth is rarely technically correct but truth is technically correct. 2+2=4 and nothing else is the true answer. On the other hand, if I were to attempt to tell you tomorrow’s weather, the truth is, it would be a guess. My prediction would be subject to change.

Larry So I expect JJ will soon go back and reword everything he ever said about principles so he can get it “technically correct” enough to account for all the exceptions those principles run into when expressed down here in the real world.

JJ Again, where are you getting such thoughts? Certainly not from anything I have said. No, I’m not going to go back and reword everything I’ve said about principles. There are no exceptions to principles. For instance, if there is a cause then there is an effect – always.

A lot of what I have written about principles is not technically correct and it would be counterproductive to attempt to get them all technically correct because they are understood through the soul when the sensitive seeker is pointed in the direction of seeing the principle.

Larry: The question is, will JJ continue to discuss eternal principles while not allowing Jefferson to do the same?

JJ Wow, Larry, I’ve never seen you come to such strange conclusions before. What is going on in your mind?

Thomas Jefferson is free to come back from the dead and discuss all the principles he wants as are you. Why would you think otherwise?

Larry: Will JJ from now on qualify everything he ever says about words that do not pass away exposing all the exceptions they might ever run into in the real world so he can remain “technically correct”?

JJ You seem to think that I think it is important to always be technically correct because the subject has come up. Why would you think this? It may be important as far as legal matters go but it is not a big deal in teaching metaphysics. In teaching principles the important thing is to communicate the essence of things and paint a picture for the student.

When Jesus said, “Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free,” he was not technically correct either, but he painted a picture that leads to principles and greater understanding. A book could be written on it, yet if one just reads it literally he will have little understanding.

The same is true of Jefferson’s words. His words are lost in the literal thinking of many but lead to soul truths for those who contemplate and see the bigger picture.

Larry: Is it true that eternal principles are not technically correct

JJ When a principle is seen and understood it is correct in every way. But we do not see the fullness of a principle through technically correct literal words. One must look through the eyes of the soul at the picture painted by the words.

Larry: Is there a “technically correct” principle out there that precludes the simple articulation of eternal truth unless you accompany it with many “real world” qualifiers? Let me try it. Jesus erred when he said, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

JJ Again, Jesus was not technically correct but his words painted a picture of a principle which can lead to right human relations.

If one just goes by the literal meaning he could turn some friends into enemies.

Let us ay that I like someone to wake me at 6 AM every day. My wife, on the other hand, wants to sleep til 8 AM. Because I take Jesus literally I wake her at 6 AM. She is angry and I think: “The Golden Rule does not work.”

I would be wrong. It does work when the principle is seen. Waking my wife when I want to be awakened violates the principle, but seems literally correct.

Larry: One more thing, we have a masterful articulation of the principles of good government from Jefferson in the Declaration. Why would we ever want to say it fails the technically correct test?

JJ We had argued for days and a good portion of the argument was different understandings of Jefferson’s words. When something like this happens then this is the time to further analyze the words and attempt to see what is technically correct as well as the principles involved. If we do nothing then there is no chance of reaching agreement. If we attempt to clarify then there is a chance.

Larry: These words give us one of the very best opportunities where people let down their heart wall so that we can teach truth about law.

JJ The trouble was that Blayne and others had major disagreements about law with respect to Jefferson’s words so further analysis was necessary.

Larry Why would we want to cast it in a bad light?

JJ Again where did you get this notion??? No one cast anything Jefferson said in a bad light – especially me. I have nothing but praise for the Declaration of Independence. I don’t think it could have been worded better.

Larry: You like JJ’s new teaching about technically correct way of stating principles.

JJ There is no new or old teaching about being technically correct about stating principles. Often times it is not desirable.

Larry: Show us how this new rule works out when we post so we won’t have to get corrected for technical blunders as that blunderer Thomas did.

JJ No one said Jefferson blundered and there is no new rule. What’s got into you today? You usually understand me quite well.

Larry: Yea, I like this new method of discussing principles by always stating every exception we can cover all the bases and always recognize that stating actual principles is NEVER technically correct in our real world, plus we don’t have to worry about stepping on any toes. This will be great fun. I’m glad JJ advocates this whenever TJ speaks in the Declaration.

JJ Larry, you are totally misrepresenting me here. This is not like you.

Larry I’m also glad he will follow his own rule from now on

JJ There is no rule except in your mind.

Larry: because it will shed much light on how technically correct truth actually works out in our discussions about real life. I’m anxious to see what the KOK looks like from now on with Dan and Ruth policing everyone who breaks the rule or who expresses any questions about the rule, I’ll check in next year…

JJ Again, there is no rule and I hope your offense gets healed shortly so we can have the good ole positive Larry back.

Nov 7, 2011
 The Two Definitions

Principles (was Re: Jefferson’s inspiring wording)

Here are a few things I have written on principles.

Principles: What a principle is.

A fact is merely a piece of information that anyone can incorporate into their brain memory. It can likewise be programmed into a computer. A principle is a different matter. A principle is the underlying truth that makes all facts valid. It requires judgment to use and cannot be programmed into a computer.

For instance, the Constitution of the United States is built around the principle of the Free Agency of man. Around this principle has sprung the Constitution and thousands of books containing millions of facts. In the days of the foundation of this country there was only a handful of enlightened people who were able to understand the principle of freedom. People of a lower order could not see it. There was no way that King George from England could teach or enlighten George Washington in any degree on this principle even though he probably had as many facts in his head on the subject as Washington did. On the other hand, Washington could have done much to enlighten the King if he was willing to listen.

It takes a thousand facts to paint a clear picture of one principle, but the understanding of one principle reveals thousands of facts. It takes a certain point in the evolution of the human being to comprehend the difference between a principle and a fact but when he does, and learns to go within and touch the soul, then all the understanding and vision of a principle is revealed in a flash. Sometimes a book can be written about a principle revealed in one instant.

What is the difference between a principle and a law?

A principle is that which demonstrates the intelligence of God and makes things in the universe work toward a dominating good.

A law is a description of the working of a principle, or principles. By law I am referring to universal laws and not manmade rules.

If the law is accurately described then the perfection of God is made manifest because such a description shows the consistency of the principle and allows us to predict the future actions of the mind of God in the universe.

For instance, all form is held in place through the principle of magnetism which is an aspect of the principle of Love.

All the laws we have concerning gravity are produced by observing and describing this principle in action.

Within our souls is the capability of recognizing whether or not a thing is true. When a principle is spoken, you’ll feel within yourself the vibration of certain chords that ring true.

A principle is true yesterday, today and forever, but knowledge (as data) changes by the hour (the temperature for example). The language of the Holy Spirit is composed of principles, not data. To know all things in the language of the spirit is to know all principles.

True principles are always in effect all around us. The universe is built upon true principles, held together by them and will be dissolved by them. True principles govern our lives, our deaths, our relationships, our sorrow and our joys.

The bird flies making use of true principles, yet does not understand the principle of flight or realizes it exists. So it is with us. We live in a sea of principles, which governs all things, yet until we touch the soul we do not even realize what a principle is.

Many of the best authors touch upon a principle. Some have a sense of that which they have discovered, while others do not discern them from facts. Sometimes you can find a principle in a book written by an author that does not know what a principle is.

A principle is not created. A principle is always present and always works without beginning or end.

Take the principle of cause and effect. Was there ever a time that it did not work? Cause and effect has always been here and always will.

Take another principle:

**If there is no beginning there will be no end.

No one created this; it just exists past, present and future. Take a look at any true principle and you will see it had no creation, but just always is and always works and cannot be destroyed.

I think that truth, as a principle, is so abstract, that it needs its own “vehicle” in order to manifest. So, we have to speak of “knowledge of the truth” or “the light of truth”. When the light of truth is thrown on a conflict (illusion versus illusion), the illusion is swept away and the conflict vanishes.

A principle is an enunciation of what is. A principle isn’t made. A principle is eternal and it always is. Like Newton said, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. He discovered a principle. From that he was able to deduce a multitude of truths.

The truth that makes us free is found in the understanding of true principles.

The challenge for us to advance from facts and data to the language of principles and then, when a principle is understood, advance to a higher principle still.

There is a hierarchy of truth. The bottom of the hierarchy is truth manifesting on the physical plane. At the top of the hierarchy is the truth that there is One Great Life we call God. I am only stating God as a fact, a piece of data, because the principle behind God is a great mystery which has never been revealed.

As we advance from physical plane truth to truth on the higher planes, that which binds us is loosed and greater freedom is obtained.

A principle is true yesterday, today and forever, but knowledge (as data) changes by the hour (the temperature for example). The language of the Holy Spirit is composed of principles, not data. To know all things in the language of the spirit is to know all principles.

Let’s compare us to a slug. We don’t really know anything about the slug’s world but our knowledge is much higher than that of the slug. Just as we’re thinking on a much higher level so are the higher lives whose language is the language of principles where they can communicate principles, which is equal to thousands of pieces of data in one instant. They communicate without knowing anything about the data because they don’t need to know the data. They only need to know the principle. So when the principle is communicated by the higher lives, the lower type of knowledge isn’t even necessary but the lower type of knowledge can be discovered if it’s important for it to be discovered. When a principle is communicated to us we can translate that principle into a language we can understand by explaining it with a lot of data. The higher lives don’t have to do that.

Nov 9, 2011
 Re: OT: Proof that the devil is in the details

Duke: In 1289 Italian painter Giotto di Bondonne painted a series of frescos on the wall of the Basillica of St. Francis of Assissi. Hidden in the clouds of one is the face of a devil, which apparently went unnoticed for over seven centuries, up until very recently. Just goes to show that the old adage is indeed true: The devil really is in the details.


JJ The fact that the presence of the devil was missed for 700 years really illustrates the principle that you find what you are looking for.

This link has closeups that are much easier to see:


Nov 9, 2011
Law of Rebirth      

Natalie is attempting to create a group and expressed interest in having some type of lesson plan to teach from. I put together some basics years ago using a question and answer technique. Often just throwing one question at an audience can lead to quite a lot of discussion.

I’ll post a few of these lessons which all are free to use. Sooner or later I’ll add to them and fine tune them.

The first one is here:

Dan: If more advanced people are needed to form a molecule, it seems to me it might be useful to develop lesson plans that are more philosophical and not so scripture-centric in order to attract them.

JJ You are correct. I wrote these original lessons around 30 years ago when I was attempting to reach out to the Mormons and regular Christians. To expand their usefulness more cosmopolitan versions need to be written, which I plan to do. In the meantime these lessons will be useful in some circles.

Susan: Initiates of classes (class leaders) have the calling to create the lesson plans. It is not on JJ’s shoulders to spoon feed us everything. You are quite capable of developing lesson plans Dan if you truly feel called to have them. I have faith in you. 🙂

JJ Some teachers will need a little help and structure and others will want to put together their own lesson – maybe from material that I haven’t even covered. We want teachers to feel free to use their creativity. I think though that making lessons available will help some feel more confident in starting some classes.

Nov 11, 2011
Promising New Energy Source


Copyright 2011 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

(You do not have to log in to add comments)

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go Here

Keys Writings, Part 17

This entry is part 31 of 34 in the series 2011C

Oct 29, 2011

I never did comment on the principle behind pushing the boundaries as happens with children and some adults. The post was at:

Keys Post 54431

The Question: This is a branch of the real principle, which gives us an opportunity to do some discovery:

What is the real principle behind this Push the Boundary force and how it works?

We received a number of answers on this and I believe each person participating guessed a different principle. They couldn’t all be right could they?

Well, they all could be partially correct for many different principles are at play in everything we do, just as there are many parts to the elephant. As I said in my recent post – even scratching an itch has principles and forces at play.

On the other hand, there are some things that play out where a core principle is involved and this is one.

The core principle is inertia and I think the group will see this as I explain.

According to this principle an object in motion will stay in motion unless it is stopped by a force equal to that which is keeping it in motion.

Now when a kid gets his desires in motion for something he wants (like a new video game) the parent may at first dismiss the expressed desire and think that will be the end of it, but it often is not.

The kid has set his desires in motion, desires that have energy behind them, and the parent keeps getting hit with this energy time and time again. Finally, he gets worn down any buys the video game. The purchase is the counter force that neutralizes the energy of the kids inertia.

Another parent may not have money to buy the game and lash back at the kid with anger. If the anger has equal energy to the inertia of the desire then the kid will give up for the time being.

Many people visit salesperson thinking they are just going to look, but are not going to buy anything just yet. Then they wind up buying everything but the kitchen sink.


Because a good salesperson uses the principle of inertia. He throws desire energy at them again and again and if the customers find themselves moving in a current toward the dotted line and they do not counter with high resistance they follow the path of least resistance and will purchase. By the time that they have been hit with the power of inertia they may feel it is easier to spend a bundle of money rather than to resist.

Right now, president Obama is creating inertia behind his jobs bill. It could be the worst bill since the beginning of time but the appeal to jobs for those who are desperate is great. Since he is pitching this new stimulus again and again the inertia is building and can only be stopped by opposing forces. Some opposing forces have surfaced but some version of this is likely to get through unless the opposing force is increased.

Oct 29, 2011
Re: Definitions 1.1

LWK They (natural rights) could no more be taken away than one could take away the fact that men needed food to live – it was simply part of their “unalienable” nature.

JJ This made me think that maybe we should say the right to food is as natural of a right as the right to liberty. After all, if it came down to choosing to have food or liberty when one is starving to death, most would chose food.

Questions for the group: So, do we have a natural right to food?

Does one have a right to another’s food if the other guy has lots of it and you have none and are starving?

How about if the other guy has abundance and you are just surviving and often go to bed hungry?

How about if the other guy just eats a lot better than you can afford to?

LWK You stated that in your view that your meaning was the majority view of the meaning of “rights” and that somehow others should be obliged to state they are using a “minority” meaning. I personally do not agree with your interpretation.

JJ Well, I don’t exactly agree with that statement either. I said (or at least meant to say) that when speaking in legal terms the legal definition of rights is the one normally used and is used most of the time. I believe this is an accurate statement.

LWK It is doubtful that either meaning, legalistic or natural rights, is clearly predominant in how people use the word.

JJ This is true, but in speaking in legal terms legal rights is usually meant and the first point that I was arguing with Blayne was supposed to deal wit the question: Was it legal?

You made some excellent points in your post. Here is one I liked: “You don’t protect the rights of some by protecting the rights of others to attack them.”

Here is another: “There are many things the government does today that are much more likely to lead to a totalitarian government than killing terrorists instead of trying to bring them to trial.

“The most basic principle of natural rights is that one cannot claim their protection while violating the natural rights of others.”

JJ So true. If the execution of one man will save the natural rights of thousands then it is a good trade – proving the evidence backs up the action.

Oct 30, 2012 Election 2012 Blayne: I think Ron Paul is the only republican that can beat Obama but I doubt he can win the republican nomination.

JJ I don’t think Ron Paul would have a chance to win. Right now he scares the independents as much as Obama does but after the media was done with him he would be toast. They would research his old newsletters, writings and speeches and bring forth quotes that would blow a lot of people away and portray him as a racist who thinks the South was on the right side in the Civil War and Lincoln was a traitor and tyrant.

Also the fact that he would do nothing to prevent Iran from getting the nuclear bomb and seems unconcerned that it would send one over to Israel at the first opportunity would give the media the opportunity to portray Obama as the one who is on the side of national security – weak though he is in that department.

Oct 30, 2011
Infiltrating Mormonism,one sunday school class at a time

Adam’s Post My wife, Marnie, has gone through a re-think of Mormonism over the past several years, thanks to me and my experiences and readings, and, in turn, her own experiences and readings. Often now, when she hears or reads some “Mormon speak” in a family or church setting, she cringes. She’s fond of telling me that I’ve “ruined” her. We both, of course, feel very grateful for JJ’s teachings and the “ruin” the teachings have caused us.

Marnie still takes our children to church for the social aspect and to give them some exposure to spiritual teachings and the family culture. Occasionally, Marnie is asked to substitute teach for one of our children’s Sunday school classes, as happened a few weeks ago.

The lesson was on “being pure” – this for a bunch of six year olds. It’s amazing what we don’t see when we’re firmly entrenched in thought forms, reinforced by a strong culture. The lesson suggested that the teacher use salt and pepper to illustrate personal purity and impurity – again, this to a bunch of six year olds. The lesson emphasized a lot of guilt and unworthiness. Marnie didn’t care for the message, the examples, and the way it was taught, especially given the young audience. [Yes, the church does a lot of good and teaches a few nice things, but other such ridiculous teachings are not flukes or aberrations. A while back Marnie listened to the Primary President read from Malachi to about 50 children. She told them that those who do not pay tithing will burn! – yes, in so many words and with that emphasis. And many other examples there are. Many of you I’m sure are familiar with such ridiculous and often harmful things that go on in what is supposed to be an educational and spiritual environment.]

Anyway, my wife didn’t like the lesson, so, God bless her, of her own volition, without my prompting or consultation, she changed it. She got out some darts and a target and used JJ’s teaching about Hamartano (I know JJ is not the only person to teach this, but JJ’s writings are where we first heard the true definition and analogy to shooting an arrow at a target) Needless to say, the lesson was a hit (yes, punned) with the kids. Aside from being fun and entertaining, the six year olds actually “got it” and they gave Marnie insightful feedback, like: “Oh, that makes sense. If we make mistakes we just try again. We practice doing better. Practice makes perfect” and so on. A much healthier message, no? A better message than: “when you sin, you are impure, like little black spots before God; and all of the accompanying thoughts of unworthiness and guilt that are likely to be imagined by impressionable and innocent minds.

A small success. But much more doable, since we can’t all go around dusting our feet to general authorities, much as I would like.

But, the small success didn’t end there. Marnie’s mother happened to be teaching the same lesson this week to the six year olds in her congregation. Her mother’s printer wasn’t working, so Marnie downloaded and printed the lesson for her. When her mother came by to pick it up, they started discussing the lesson. Marnie mentioned that she had taught it a few weeks back. She expressed to her mother that she didn’t care for the way the lesson was taught, especially for that kind of an audience. Her mother, a very orthodox Mormon, actually could see what Marnie was saying about the lesson’s poor wording, conceptualization, and analogies. Marnie told her mother what she had done and how successful it had been. Marnie’s mother “loved it.” (Can you imagine how amused/pleased I am as I listen to Marnie repeat the conversation?) “Where did you get that idea?” her mother asked. “That’s a fantastic way to teach about sin. I’m going to use that idea instead.” That’s probably about as far as Marnie could safely go with her mother. I guess we’ll never know whether her mother would have taught the lesson or not, had Marnie revealed her source:)

Truth can actually resonate when it’s not being filtered through pre-existing biases and belief. Truth can actually resonate when it’s not being filtered through pre-existing biases and belief. Oh, what…wait..what?

How we’d love to actually tell her mother where that teaching came from, but that might ruin it and halt further use of the analogy.

Another success. A few more kids who weren’t bludgeoned and burdened with guilt ridden propaganda, for an hour anyway. One Sunday school class at a time. Maybe Marnie’s mom will share with another orthodox adult who will unwittingly teach truth, as taught by an excommunicated apostate. Classic. Had to share.

Thank you for ruining us, JJ.

Adam and Marnie

JJ Thanks for the encouraging letter Adam. What you say illustrates the power of the enunciation of true principles. A teacher may receive some light and do his best to promote it and die unrecognized, but if he has followed the highest he knows some seeds will be planted and the tiniest of seeds will grow to great plants and multiply until all of humanity will some day realize the true reality. You planted a seed in your wife and your wife in her mother and the kids. Some will take that seed and plant it in others until the day comes that the apostles of the church will be talking about shooting arrows a targets until we become proficient in the paths of righteousness. Who knows, that apostle might be one of the kids taught by your wife.

Oct 31, 2011
Right to Food

Blayne: I know that JJ argues from a perspective that rights don’t really exist (Correct me if I am wrong JJ) based on his previous writings except as created and or secured by men through their individual or collective actions.

JJ To just jumble natural and legal rights together as “rights” does not accurately portray what I think. If you would have said “legal rights” you would have been correct for this was what I was talking about in relation to Awlaki. You have been talking about natural rights, a different animal, which didn’t have anything to do with my question: Was it legal?

I think we agree that it is a built in desire to want to secure life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

JJ (Previous Post) … maybe we should say the right to food is as natural of a right as the right to liberty.

LWK One could say this if one had absolutely no understanding of the concept of natural rights, and many have indeed reached this conclusion.

JJ I think I have as good of an idea of what natural rights are as you or the next guy. Let’s go by your own words. <>

Are you thinking that I was suggesting a natural right to food would mean that someone else should be forced to work to provide another with food? Where did you get such an idea??? I said nothing to indicate anything like this.

Here is how I defined a natural right, which harmonizes with the Declaration of Independence:

“That which one has a moral claim or desire to have or express.”

This definition does nothing to imply a socialistic form of government to distribute food as you imply. But the desire for food is connected with the desire for life itself and is a natural desire and just as one feels he is morally justified to live and pursue liberty and happiness all feel that that have a moral justification to obtain food to stay alive.

Not all feel they are morally justified in stealing food or forcing others to supply it to them but as long as there is an abundant supply of it, all feel morally justified in having an opportunity to honestly obtain it.

Connected with fulfilling this natural right is a natural desire to assist others in obtaining food that some, through no fault of their own, cannot obtain for themselves. These include children, babies, the disabled and the down and out who are willing to work. It is especially a natural desire to work to earn the money to feed our own children who cannot take care of themselves and it is natural for the child to expect the parent through free will to supply its needs that it can not supply for itself.

This has nothing to do with socialism, but with natural desire from our Creator as written by Jefferson.

LWK Natural rights are simply the right to exercise one’s free will without interference by others or the government.

JJ But life is spoken of as the first natural right and this exists for us whether we exercise will or not. The desire for both life and food are very similar as they exist no matter what we will and no matter what the government does and we all feel that we have a right to live and a right to eat so we can continue this right to live.

In a decent society there would be enough people who have empathy for these rights so they will share of their of own free will and all would have enough to eat to sustain their lives.

Question to the group: Does this make sense? If not why?

Oct 31, 2011
Re: Election 2012

Blayne on Ron Paul: Rasmussen did a poll recently and he was virtually tied with Obama.

JJ Some polls indicate he has a fighting chance, but this is before the media has taken sides in the general election. Right now the major media leave Ron Paul alone because they are happy to see him be a voice of opposition to many Republican policies they loath. It would be much different if he were the nominee and and was running against Boy Wonder.

Blayne: All the stuff you have brought up has already been aired in the media over and over and he still has more independents and growing. I doubt it or the Iran thing would hurt him.

JJ Where has it been aired – Alex Jones? I haven’t seen the media do any investigative reporting on Paul’s past. There’s also little about it on his site. You have to do some digging to find some of his early writings and many of them are said to be lost and many of the extant ones are controversial. BUT if he were the nominee I’m sure some of the lost ones would surface. They came out with more critical stuff on Rick Perry or Sarah Palin one one week than that have in Paul’s entire life.

Blayne: Israel has over 300 nuclear weapons they will take care of Iran if they ever became that threat just like they took care of the Iraq’s nuclear program.

JJ Iran has learned from Iraq and have secured their nuclear program much better than Iraq did. They do not care if Israel has a million nuclear warheads because they do not think they will do a first nuclear strike as all nations would turn against them. On the other hand, if they get just one or more bombs they are willing to take their chances and attack for the glory of destroying Israel. Unless there is a change in leadership we are headed for trouble there. Paul is dead wrong to not be concerned – maybe millions of dead wrongs.

Oct 31, 2011
Re: Right to Food

I would be interested in a definition of natural rights as defined by you and Blayne – in a paragraph.. In the definition that I came up with I am not going by how the strict Constitutionalists have conjured it up but by how Jefferson and the Founders seemed to understand the term “rights” in the Declaration. I think Dan has a point that it is questionable that the term natural rights, as used, is even justified. But since it is used, even in an ephemeral way, then we must acknowledge it is one of the established uses.

I would refine my definition a bit to make it more accurate. Here it is:

“That which humanity, as a whole, has a moral claim or desire to have or express.”

Previous wording:

“That which one has a moral claim or desire to have or express.”

Nov 1, 2011
Steve Job’s Last Words

Just before his death Steve looked at his sister Patty, then at his children, then his wife and next he seemed to look beyond them at empty space and said these words:

Oh Wow! Oh Wow! OH WOW!!!

Then he passed over, apparently going to the place he was seeing.

Jobs Last Words

Nov 2, 2011
Re: Gathering Data

We finally get don to the nitty gritty of this issue that the group wanted me to continue and no one has responded. Let me repeat the question:

Is there enough evidence to establish Awlaki’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

Google the name Awlaki with key words such as legal, terrorist, innocent, guilty, analysis, justified, unjustified and whatever you think helpful.

Then post the reasons he may or may not be guilty of either terrorism or treason. When we get them all tabulated then the group will judge the quality of Obama’s decision.

I’ll start the ball rolling by posting one for and against.

Reasons for being not guilty. 1. He is an American citizen and innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Reasons for guilt. 1. The underwear bomber, Umar Farouk, who tried to being down an airliner, stated this under oath at his trial: “I was greatly inspired to participate in jihad by the lectures of the great and rightly guided mujahedeen who is alive, Sheikh Anwar al-Awlaki, may Allah preserve him and his family and give them victory, Amen, and Allah knows best.”

See if you can find some positives and negatives to add to the list.

Nov 2, 2011
Morals and Legality

Question from JJ to Blayne: Do you acknowledge that there is a difference between legal rights and natural rights?

Blayne: No because anything that violates natural rights cannot be legal. Laws seek to illustrate morality and ethics.

JJ You have clarified here where the source of our disagreement is on the first point. You think a law has to fit in with your personal view of what is a moral natural right or it is flat out illegal and we can ignore it or break it at will.

Thus you consider a law as non-existent if you do not think it is moral, even if you are arrested, convicted and sent to jail by a process that has Constitutional authority.

The problem with attempting live by this belief is that there are lots of laws that others think are moral who could cause you untold grief – as they did with my friend Wayne. Wayne thought a lot of the laws were unconstitutional and immoral but he never thought they were not legal under our current system. He tried to live by what he thought the laws should be. Since he believed it was wrong for them to require him to get a drivers license then he did not get one and was arrested regularly. This cost him many thousands of dollars and several prison sentences.

I tried to reason with him many times concerning this because his beliefs were definitely affecting the quality of his life. My reasoning went something like this;

“Look, no matter what system we are under, none of us will agree with all the laws and regulations. If you violate and fight every law you disagree with that’s all you will be doing and thinking about and it will consume your life. And this struggle you have with the law doesn’t just hurt you but disrupts your business and affects the money your dozen employees make. Then you suffer from depression and this regular hassle with the law can’t help that at all.

“Sometimes in life there are two paths and neither choice may be what we want. You have the choice of a minor inconvenience of getting a license or not getting one and suffering a huge inconvenience. Which choice makes the most sense? You have to pick your battles and you’ve picked one here you can’t win. The State is not going to discontinue driver’s licenses because of anything you do, neither will the city discontinue building codes. Why don’t you concentrate your energy on something that will make a difference?”

It didn’t matter what I said to him. He wanted to stick to his principles – principles that most of his friends could not relate to or see much purpose therein.

When he died of heart failure he also had a large tumor on the back of his neck. It seemed to be a symbol of his thinking that he was carrying the weight of the world on his shoulders. Perhaps his soul was trying to yell him to release that weight and smell the roses along the path instead.

Anyway, if you have an attitude that any law (regulation or whatever you call them) you do not consider moral is something you can break or ignore because they really do not exist then you are even going beyond what Wayne thought and if you stand by these beliefs you could be headed for an equal amount or more trouble. In fact, you have already mentioned that you and others who believe as you do have suffered painful experiences through the court system. I suspect that you could write a book about your legal battles.

The trouble with ignoring what the system says is legal and only obeying laws that only fit your own version of morality is you not only suffer untold inconvenience that interferes with regular life, but your version of what conforms to natural law may be different from the next guy who believes in natural rights – like myself.

“But,” says the Fundamentalist, “the Constitution is clear and it is plain as he nose on your face what natural rights are. All we have to do is follow the obvious.”

Think so? If this is so then why are there disagreements here on the Keys between, not only liberals and conservatives, but strong libertarians that support he Constitution and principles of freedom?

Why did some of the Founding Fathers and half the country before the Civil War think that keeping slaves was a moral natural right? Many southerners thought they were doing the moral thing by keeping slaves. They believed that:

(1) Blacks were of low intelligence and needed the whites to help then advance. Slavery was good because it provided that opportunity.

(2) Slavery also enhanced their own natural right of liberty because the slaves increased prosperity and gave the owners more free time to pursue culture and their own happiness.

Now keep in mind that this was not just a small fringe as with some fundamentalist beliefs today but held by enough people to divide the entire country.

The bottom line is this. If millions of individuals can decide, by their own version of what is right, which laws they want to keep then we would have total anarchy in this country. Secondly, no system, no matter how perfect, will make everyone happy and all will have to conform to a few things they do not like to make it work.

It seems logical that the best course is to cooperate with the system unless something totally outrageous is demanded. In this case, one can lead the cause of civil disobedience and many will follow giving the possibility of actual success.

If one sees a path to improvement that others do not then he should seek to educate. The informed majority will generally pick the right path.

Your personal definition of legal and tying it to your version of natural rights causes you to not even consider that Obama could have acted legally in any way even if every constitutional authority on the planet says he did. This narrow view has caused you to not even considering answering my question in the spirit that as intended as everyone else clearly saw. I was talking about legal as it is considered by the authorities in our legal system, not your view of what is moral and that should have been extremely obvious.

But even after I have clearly explained what I mean by legal you refuse to go by the majority definition and cooperate and answer the question.

You seem to think that using a dictionary definition of something violates some principle. It does not. A definition is just what it is, and nothing more. It is a neutral thing, but one must go by definitions as understood by others or nothing will make sense to anyone and communication will be muddled.

Nov 2, 2011
Re: Right to Food

Larry W I want to discuss the practicality of Jefferson’s theory of rights which he articulated in the Declaration. JJ has said that it is an obscure use of the definition of rights and has little to do with the common man nor with common usage of the word, rights. But I disagree.

JJ I can’t find anything you said that disagrees with anything I actually said. You seem to be arguing with what I do not even think.

First I said that Blayne and literal fundamentalist have an obscure and unusual definition of rights – see my last post. I have no problem with the way Jefferson actually articulated them.

Larry: “…and has little to do with the common man…”

JJ Where did you get this idea??? The rights enunciated in the Declaration of Independence have everything to do with the common man. I have said nothing contrary to this that I recall.

Larry: “…nor with common usage of the word, rights”

JJ That’s not what I said. I said that not all laws we have today that are considered legal are the same as as natural rights or that which Jefferson considered to be moral. Not everything in the legal system is in harmony with natural rights.

Nothing you said is out of harmony with anything I have written that I can see yet you present it as a disagreement. Disagreeing with what?

Nov 2, 2011
Re: Gathering Data

I think you’re missing the reason we are doing this. We care listing things in his favor and not in his favor as to whether he is guilty of treason, terrorism, subversion, etc. I doubt if any one thing will be absolute proof one way or another. When the list is complete then the group will make a judgement. How about contributing a point?


Copyright 2011 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

(You do not have to log in to add comments)

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go Here

Keys Writings, Part 16

This entry is part 30 of 34 in the series 2011C

Oct 27, 2011
Blayne and I have about exhausted ourselves going round and round on the first point of our discussion concerning the hit on Awlaki. It is time to ask what the root cause of the disagreement is.

One of the main problems in our communications is that we are using different definitions of core words.

I always use the most standard or obvious meanings of words unless I define them otherwise in my writings. Many people do not do this, especially those who have been immersed in some school of thought with a strong point of view. Such people often use their pet words with unorthodox meanings without explaining they are using non-standard definitions.

There are two words that have been interfering with our communication.

The first is “Right.”

Blayne thinks that the noun or legal “right” is similar in meaning to the word when it is used as an adjective or adverb. In other words you have a right to do a thing if it is right, moral and of good report.

He thus sees himself as having a right to own a gun because it is a good thing that we have the freedom to bear arms.

It is good that we have free speech therefore it is our right, even if it was not granted by the constitution or by any law.

The trouble with using this definition is that following it can get such a believer in trouble.

My friend Wayne went by this definition and thought it was right, moral and good that he should be able to drive without a license. Therefore, he thought he had “the right” to do so and went ahead and did it. This bullheadedness on his part brought him a tremendous amount of grief and expense. He was arrested regularly and several times spent time in jail. Not only me and my wife, but numerous friends tried talking him into getting a license, arguing that it would make his life so much easier. Unfortunately, he thought it was his right to drive without a license because it was immoral for the State to decree otherwise.

Wayne also thought it was his right to not pay income taxes. Because the tax was immoral in his eyes he just did not pay for about 40 years of his life. He would get calls every few years from the IRS but he told them that if they came to his door he would be waiting with a shotgun. Amazingly, that seemed to keep them at bay until he died.

He didn’t have such good luck with the city though. He put up some buildings on his property without building permits and the city fined him on a monthly basis. Again when the city threatened other action he told them he would be waiting with a shotgun and that seemed to physically hold them off but he had so many liens slapped on his property I don’t think his daughter got a penny of inheritance at his death.

I could write a book about Wayne’s unusual ways. I left out a lot of good stuff about him in The Immortal because I didn’t want to offend him or get him in trouble, but now he’s passed that won’t be such a concern.

Anyway, Wayne seemed to look at rights the same way Blayne does and it led to all kinds of trouble and possibly an early death. He wasn’t very happy with his life and didn’t even want a long life.

When I have been speaking of rights I have used he common definition which is, “legal authority.” If I have a legal right to do something then I will not live in fear of being arrested. We have the right to free speech and even have the right to criticize the president legally.

In North Korea they do not have that right and would be arrested if citizens criticize their Dear Leader there.

The second word Blayne and I are having a problem with is “legal.” Again I use the common definition that the dictionary says is something “allowed by law.”

On the other hand, Blayne associates legal with morality and feels that if something is illegal it is immoral. On the other hand, moral things are legal. Therefore, if he is doing good works and seems to be harming no one then he is always legal even if the cops and judges say he is breaking the law.

I think the rest of the group are pretty much in agreement on the Awlaki situation but we’ll proceed anyway and see what happens.

Oct 27, 2011
Definitions 1.1

This idea of there being a “right” definition or meaning to words that have multiple dictionary definitions is entirely on the wrong track for resolving our communication problems here.

Is there a right definition to the word cool? If I call someone a “cool dude” am I wrong because cool means a low temperature and therefore I am really saying that his body is cool?

That’s silly.

A word has the meaning that has been assigned to it in the context of speaking or writing it and that context is normally one of the definitions in the dictionary. If it is not clearly defined in the dictionary or is a minority definition then the communicator should explain what he means in using the word.

For instance I have used the word “purpose” with a different meaning than found in the dictionary but I went to significant lengths to explain what I mean so communication would not be confusing.

When I communicate I generally use the most common dictionary definition. If I do not do this then the context should indicate the definition used. If the context does not make it clear which definition is being used them I attempt to clarify, something that all good writers should do – if they want to be clear.

The word “right” has been defined in a number of different ways. None of them are right or wrong. They are what they are – the meanings that mortal man has assigned to them.

The most common definition of “a right” in connection with law is “legal authority” or authority from someone that has power over our lives. This is the way the word is used probably 90% of the time so if a person uses the word with some other meaning he should make it clear in the beginning that he is using a minority meaning.

Examples of majority use:

A family has a picnic in the park and are enjoying themselves when the governor arrives with a police escort. The police order the family to move because the governor needs their location for a photo op.

The family says, “We have the right to be here and stay here.”

They are not talking about some God-given theoretical right, but a legal right that would prevail in court.

Another family pitches a tent in a city park and decides to live there. A cop appears and chases them off declaring that they have no right to do this. Now a small minority may think that all people have a right to use public land however they please (think Wall Street Protesters) but most would not argue with the cop’s use of right as legal authority as being appropriate.

In common people have no problem with the use of this word as most use the word according to the common definition.

Even the Constitution seems to use the word “right” in connection with legal authority. The sixth Amendment says the accused has:

“the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law.”

Nothing in natural law or God’s law talks about a speedy trial which shall be held in a district which “shall have been previously ascertained BY LAW.”

The words “by law” does not refer to any God established moral law but law created by the legal authority or the Powers-That-Be.

The Constitution talks about the right to vote and the age, sex and race that can vote. These have changed over the years indicating that they were generally using the common definition of rights – not rights as an eternal moral thing that changes not.

So where has this idea of eternal God-given unchangeable rights emerged then?

This confusion over rights is mainly due to Jefferson’s beautiful poetic words in the Declaration of Independence. There he used poetic and creative license with his words to create an inspiring document.

I may have used the same choice of words myself in that situation for I heartily agree with the spirit of his words, but when we look the literal meaning we see that it is not technically correct.

The confusion comes mainly from this phrase:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

“Unalienable” means “that which cannot be given or taken away.” It thus becomes problematic that all three of these, “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” can be taken away. A Tyrant, such as Kim Jong Ill has full power (a right in his own mind) to take all three away from his subject at a moment’s notice.

Obviously Jefferson was not saying that all people have the right or full power over their lives liberty and happiness, but it is self evident that we have the moral right. The moral right to these things cannot generally be taken away, but even here there one can throw up exceptions.

Suppose part of your pursuit of happiness is sexually abusing little kids. In this case the pursuit of happiness should be put to a screeching halt.

The spirit of Jefferson’s document is terrific but one could dissect it and find many shades of meaning and flaws.

The biggest problem it has created is that it has lead to Constitutional fundamentalists to use the word “right” in sort of an odd and esoteric sort of way that those outside of their group do not relate to accurately.

Constitutional fundamentalists have a perfect moral and legal right to use their slant of meaning when using the word

right” in connection with legal matters but they need to do two things.

(1) Since many will not fully understand their meaning they should explain their terms when speaking to people not connected with their thought form.

(2) If they do not explain their terms then they should use the common meaning that the person they are talking with will understand.

I have often found myself in a situation where the person I am talking to uses a word meaning in a way that I rarely do. I realize that if I use the word as I normally do that confusion will be created so I do one of two things. I either use the word as he seems to be defining it, or just tell him I attach a different meaning to the word and explain it to him.

Many senseless arguments are created because people do not do one of these two things but just proceed using a minority definition that they expect others to absorb by osmosis.

This reminds of a time way back in 1970 when I was desperate and took a job selling vacuum cleaners. The company presented the idea that their machine was so superior to other vacuum cleaners that we were forbidden to use that obsolete word to even describe it. If we were caught calling our machine a vacuum cleaner we were either disciplined or fired. It was just a “cleaner” and that was it.

On the other hand it was fine that we call any other vacuum cleaner as such but the word was always used despairingly by the staff.

This caused a problem for the salesmen for sometimes we had to take a significant amount of time explain why the machine wasn’t a vacuum cleaner.

Did we expect customers to understand without explanation that our machine was not a vacuum cleaner? Of course not. (Actually, it was a vacuum cleaner)

Even so, when a person uses a minority definition of a word in a conversation he needs to make sure the other person is aware of his meaning. The two need to agree as to the meaning of the various words or their argument will continue ad infinitum.

When an argument descends to being centered over definitions of words then real communication has generally been lost.

Oct 27, 2011

Re: Definitions 1.1

Larry W. I use Jefferson’s definition of the word, rights, and I’m sticking to it.

JJ There is more than one definition and I accept them all. Don’t you? Often his use just doesn’t apply to the term. How do you use it then?

Larry The fact that people watered it down has caused us to lose Jefferson’s high ideals.

JJ I don’t think they are watered down at all but his definition is just not practical in the common vernacular. If a person says, “I have a right to this seat because I was here first,” – that doesn’t have much to do with rights from God, but customs of man and that is naturally how the term “rights” is used most of the time.

Larry His definition teaches us a lot about the ideals of freedom. I would like to encourage everyone to return the high ideal that rights can be defined by who created them.

JJ The problem is that neither Jefferson or the writers of the Constitution defined what they meant by rights in the documents. The declaration gives one slant on their use and the Constitution another – a more orthodox one.

Larry Let me say that again, “…defined by who created them.” Human rights come from God, legal rights come from government.

JJ And whose version of God do we go by – Christians, Mohammeds, Hindus??? Which spokesman for God is there that we can trust to reveal the mind of God on rights.

Jefferson talked about Nature’s God and rights that feel natural to man. These are indeed rights we should pursue, but there are legal rights also which are a different animal.

Again, rights are merely what someone defined them to be and right now there are several dictionary definitions and they are all valid and can be accurately used.

Larry: Besides, I thought this already was the mainstream definition – coming directly from America’s founding document as it does.

JJ Which founding document? The declaration gives one slant on rights and the Constitution another. They both have their place. Maybe one out of 20 times you see term “rights” (apart from right and wrong) is it used as Jefferson did.

Larry Finally, I have found it to be one of the best teaching tools I ever ran across for teaching the respectful and harmless principles of law. Since most everyone already reveres the Declaration, they accept these ideas directly from it quite readily. It’s not only a clear definition, defining rights by who creates them, but it also clearly shows the difference between eternal principles compared to manmade law. Why fight it, JJ? It’s a good thing. Join it.

JJ What gives you the idea I am fighting anything??? I’ve already praised Jefferson’s use of words. This doesn’t mean that “a right” doesn’t have several definitions and the most common use of the term today is not the one Jefferson was using. If I tell my wife that “I have the right to pick which show we see next” I am not in any way thinking of the Declaration of Independence – even though it would be a righteous thing to dwell more upon the document.

Oct 28, 2011
Re: Definitions 1.1

Larry Woods says, of course. Tom (Thomas Jefferson) and I define the word by WHO creates it. This parses the context for us very neatly. As I said and as Tom demonstrated, human rights come from God, who created humans.

JJ The trouble is that God has never spoken to us and told us what he means by rights or what he considers to be a right.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are rights that all intelligent life in the universe seek to secure but there are many times in mortal life where they are not secure. The people in North Korea do not have the right over their own physical life for Kim Jong Ill threatens to take it from them if they step out of line. Nether do they have the right of liberty and to pursue happiness. They should have these things and one day will – if not in this life in a future one.

Now Blayne, and perhaps you, think that these rights exist for the enslaved even though they cannot exercise them (an oxymoron) because they morally should belong to all men, but not all things that should be exist in the present time. This seems like a somewhat convoluted way of defining a word to many. For instance, if we were to tell a North Korean that he has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness he would probably look at us cross-eyed and say something like: “What are you talking about? I have no liberty and cannot pursue my dreams and if I do I will be put to death.”

On the other hand, if we told him that these are things he should have because it is morally right he would then quit looking at us as if we were out of our minds and agree.

The two ways of looking at Jefferson’s words are quite easy to understand and shouldn’t be the cause of misunderstandings and no matter how you look at the life liberty and the pursuit of happiness all spring from the eternal principle of Decision. Light exists eternally also but we are not always basking in it nor is it always available. Do you have a right to light if you are in the dark with no flashlight? This idea doesn’t make sense even though light is always in existence.

Larry: Legal rights come from the government, who created statutes. The rights that enable and create government come from We the People, who created the government. Didn’t I make that clear?

JJ This was never not clear.

Larry: Can you say that all the “rights” we get from government are really eternal words that don’t pass away?

JJ They are part of the eternal struggle and are all associated with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I am happier when the state lets me go 70 MPH rather than just 60 MPH. Larry: Of course not. In the context of government, what is the difference then between a right and a privilege?

JJ I do not care. I’ll go with whatever you pick from the dictionary.

Larry: Imagine this scene, which takes place in our court rooms every single day. The plaintiff talks about rights, thinking of principles and eternal rights from God, while the judge and all the attorneys present are thinking privilege. Do you think they will communicate well? No. Why not? Because the poor guy is ignorant that creators create rights and that the several definitions of rights depend upon their origin. Am I right about this?

JJ Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness did not have a creator for they are based on eternal principles and have never had a beginning. We can’t say they are defined by their creator for they had no creator. Even God would not exist without them. We are eternally seeking to enhance our lives, our liberty and pursue those things that bring us happiness and joy.

We are endowed by our creator with the impulse to seek to secure the physical right to pursue these things.

This knowledge is helpful in an individual life, but it won’t do you much good in a courtroom and it doesn’t have much to do with the first point as to whether Obama’s action was legal.

Somehow various definitions of rights got injected into the conversation. The question was quite simple. It was supposed to be dealing with the legality of taking out Awlaki and any rights discussed should have dealt with legal ones originating from this country.

We have yet to discuss the morality of the situation as a group – even though some individuals have.

Oct 28, 2011
The Two Definitions

Wow, Larry, instead of clarifying what rights are I think you are covering so many details that the discussion is just making people’s heads spin with little additional light filtering in.

You talk of eternal principles being associated with moral idealistic rights. Well, eternal principles are behind everything we do if we trace then back to the source. If I jump up and down in anger on my TV remote eternal principles are involved. If I go to court and am subject to arbitrary rights and privileges eternal principles are also involved. Eternal principles are involved in everything. Scratching your armpit can be traced back to them.

I do not see this rights conversation as having much conflict between us (some misunderstanding of communication perhaps). Instead we come down to two different basic ways of defining rights.

First there is a right as expressed in the Declaration of independence. I think “Right” was the correct word to use to create an inspiring document but I think the use there has caused some confusion. The confusion would have been minimized if he had said this more accurate statement instead:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable just desires that must be made secure, that among these are the desire for a secure Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Writing the document this way would have been more technically correct and would have avoided some confusion such as we have had here, but it wouldn’t have had the impact.

As it is there are two basic uses of the word caused by two ways of defining it.

(1) That which one has a moral claim or desire to have or express.

(2) That which one has power to do which is in harmony with the laws of the land in which he lives and those who have any authority over his actions.

Thus according to #1 the North Koreans have the right to free speech, but few would use this definition in relation to them and express it this way.

According to Definition Two they do not have the right to free speech.

Thus in our argument Blayne only used Definition One and claimed the North Koreans have the right to free speech whereas I used Definition Two and claimed they did not.

During our argument I attempted to get Blayne to recognize and use Definition Two so we could be on the same page, as that is what determines the technical legality of Obama’s actions.

I understood Blayne’s use of Definition One but it was not applicable to the discussion. I know he thinks it is, and from an esoteric point of view it may be, but for practically determining legality we must use Definition Two.


Copyright 2011 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

(You do not have to log in to add comments)

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go Here

Keys Writings, Part 15

This entry is part 29 of 34 in the series 2011C

Oct 25, 2011
Re: Letter of the Law 1.2

Blayne: If had to sum up the two sides it is this: Your side is that bunch of politically connected attorneys studied the evidence and concluded he was a threat worthy of death and you explicitly trust that decision despite the lack of verification/accountability. And the precedent that government has done this in the past secretly and or illegally etc. makes it ok.

JJ That’s about a million miles from my side. This tells me that you are reading what I write with tremendous filters on wit the purpose of defending your mindset and not even trying to understand what I am saying or trying to do.

Why don’t you read what I actually write and try restating what my side is.

Oct 25, 2011
Re: Letter of the Law 1.2

Blayne: If had to sum up the two sides it is this: Your side is that bunch of politically connected attorneys studied the evidence and concluded he was a threat worthy of death and you explicitly trust that decision despite the lack of verification/accountability. And the precedent that government has done this in the past secretly and or illegally etc. makes it ok.

JJ (Previous Post) That’s about a million miles from my side. This tells me that you are reading what I write with tremendous filters on with the purpose of defending your mindset and not even trying to understand what I am saying or trying to do.

Why don’t you read what I actually write and try restating what my side is.

Blayne: What part of my statements are wrong?

JJ So you can’t more accurately restate the stance I am taking? If you are going to argue with me you first must understand what I am saying and coming from else we will continue to go around in circles.

You seem to think I am coming from a value judgment stance in our discussing as you are. I am not. So far with you I have only attempted to conclude whether the action was legal or not. This is a conclusion dealing with the technicalities of the law – NOT whether Awlaki was “worthy” of death.

Let’s analyze what you think I am saying based on what I have been trying to accomplish with you.

Blayne “Your side is that bunch of politically connected attorneys studied the evidence and concluded he was a threat worthy of death.”

JJ I haven’t taken a side and have not said anything giving a value judgment as to whether Awlaki was worth of death. I have maintained that the evidence gives support to the idea that Obama’s action was legal. That doesn’t mean he was right or wrong or that Awlaki was “worthy’ of death. It means the action is assumed to be legal unless proved and accepted otherwise through the judicial system.

Blayne: “and you explicitly trust that decision.”

JJ I haven’t said whether or not I trust Obama’s decision let alone “explicitly trust.” Trusting or not trusting Obama’s decision has nothing to do with the first point that we are dealing with.

Blayne: despite the lack of verification/accountability.

JJ Again this has nothing to do with the first point – Is it legal? I do not believe I have given any value judgment related to verification or accountability yet.

Blayne: And the precedent that government has done this in the past secretly and or illegally etc. makes it ok.

JJ I didn’t use precedents to establish that anything was okay, but to give evidence of the legality.

Again, for the umpteenth time – if something is legal that doesn’t mean it is right, moral or okay.

Here is my correct position so far:

Evidence and facts indicate that Obama’s action was legal.

Oct 26, 2011
Letter of the Law 1.3

Blayne I agree with you here in fact there are a distinct lack of facts in this case which is one of the main reasons for my stance. So if the facts are not enough to support my conclusion how in the world are they enough to support yours?

JJ I didn’t say there were not enough facts but “facts are not enough to assure a correct decision,” meaning that two people can look at the same facts and come to different conclusions.

There are enough facts to establish the legality. You don’t need many facts for this like you would if we were evaluating how moral tor correct the action was.

Blayne If had to sum up the two sides it is this: Your side is that bunch of politically connected attorneys studied the evidence and concluded he was a threat worthy of death and you explicitly trust that decision despite the lack of verification/accountability. And the precedent that government has done this in the past secretly and or illegally etc. makes it ok.

JJ See previous post.

Blayne My side is this: the only verifiable/accountable evidence is that he has spouted some anti-government rhetoric. That he was a credible threat is nothing more then accusations aired in the media. And that this does not warrant immediate assassination. And that past precedents of illegal actions do not make it ok,

JJ This has nothing to do with the first point we are discussing which is:

Was it legal?

Blayne: I actually agree with you here and this is why I am so astonished. I am definitely attached to the values and ideals of freedom and justice

JJ But that doesn’t have anything to do with the question: Is it legal? Your mind keeps translating this question into; “Was it the right thing to do?

You seem to have a problem in breaking a problem down to its component parts and analyzing them. You keep wanting to deal with the whole shebang at one time and this is one reason no one seems to be able to come to agreement with you in an augment and we keep going in circles.

Blayne and would rather error on the side of freedom then allow any encroachment because I have seen the pain misery and suffering trampled rights cause. My astonishment is that others who are otherwise intelligent would see this as not all that important and see my position as not a good thing

JJ Most people here value the principle of freedom just as much as you do. Judging whether or not a thing is legal has nothing to do with freedom. If I say that slavery was legal 200 years ago that does not mean I do not value freedom.

Blayne So let me make sure I understand you here. You are saying a principle must be like gravity always in operation despite what men do? JJ This could lead us to a diversion that could take us far off the topic and lead to days of going back and forth. I have already written volumes on principles.

A principle is the core thing that explains why something works. Gravity itself is not a principle though it is often called such but some principle explains its operation and why it is always at play. That principle has not yet been discovered but it will be related to the principled of cause and effect. A principle is always true and can be accessed once understood.

The principle of freedom is related to decision. Every decision we make either leads to greater or less freedom. Decisions are always at play.

My point was that if you see this as a principle then I can see why you think there should be no exceptions to it just as cause and effect is never negated.

JJ (Previous Post) You have a black and white view where the Solomon principle does not even apply, no exceptions, a person should be presumed innocent until found innocent or guilty by a jury trial.

Blayne This is an incorrect view of my position I have repeated several times there are some exceptions. Perhaps one of the reasons we can’t agree is because of wrong perception of my view?

JJ If this is incorrect then when can we discard the presumed innocent process of the legal system?

JJ (Previous Post) If a law is declared legal by constitutionally appointed judges and I do not agree with that law then it is still the law and legal and binding in your society. And what do you suggest we do with laws we do not like – break them and go to jail? Complain about them? That doesn’t do much good. If a person is really outraged then he should seek to make changes.

Blayne I have already proven this is not true and quoted A supreme court ruling and 16th volume of American Jurisprudence. Martin Luther King Broke the law and went to jail and it did change the law eventually.

JJ There’s nothing in your quote that disproves anything I have said.

The Constitution trumps all other laws like it says and unconstitutional laws can be discarded, but a law passed through proper channels will be in force until it is proven to be unconstitutional. Just because you think a law is unconstitutional doesn’t mean that others will see it the same way. If the Supreme Court declares a law is constitutional and you disagree then you will still be bound by it, even if you are sure they are wrong.

There are many laws that some argue as being unconstitutional that we are still bound by because judges think they are constitutional.

Just try and drive without a license if you think having one is unconstitutional. You can still go to jail as did my friend Wayne. You can’t just say, I’m ignoring this because it is not Constitutional.

Blayne You seem to feel that there is nothing we can do but then you seem to contradict yourself and say a person should change the law if he doesn’t like it.

JJ I said there is nothing we can do about bad law in THE SHORT TERM! In the long term we can attempt to change the laws. There is no contradiction.

Blayne: Your idea that any law passed is binding is the prevailing mindset and is the very reason why it is so hard to change things and the entire system.

JJ So are you saying that if a law is passed that you deem unconstitutional, but it has not been overturned then you can break it with impunity? I don’t think so. It didn’t work for Wayne. Where do you get such illogical unreasonable ideas?

Blayne: Do you believe government has a right to mandate health care coverage?

JJ I think it is unconstitutional but there are Supreme Court justices that disagree. Law is not subject to belief. If I believe that I should be able to drive without a license I can still go to jail over it no matter what I believe.

We should be getting a Supreme Court decision soon on the mandate and that will determine what is legal with the mandate independent of any belief you have.

Blayne If no then will you obey the law passed despite 70% of Americans opposition?

JJ I obey all current laws with draconian penalties. I think even Ron Paul does also.

Blayne: So by having this mindset that any law passed is binding which goes against all our founding principles and hundreds of years of jurisprudence and historical precedent we have created a society that think government has a right to intervene into every aspect of out lives.

JJ One thing has nothing to do with the other. Bad law, which is binding has been passed or incorporated since the beginning of civilization and will continue far into the future. Why you think that a law passed, but not overturned, is not binding and you can ignore it without penalty is an amazing piece of mental gymnastics to behold.

JJ (Previous Post) Once something is legal there is no line to draw. It is just legal and there is nothing you can do about it in the short term. You can disagree with it but you will still be subject to it until it is changed.

Blayne So if congress ever passes a law that it is ok for them to rape women at will then you would consider that binding and tell folks if they don’t like it then change it but until then they must abide by it? That is the logical conclusion of your view. You are dead wrong here my friend!

JJ I said we must abide by law or suffer the penalties attached. I didn’t say that we could not break the law through civil disobedience. In that case the penalty would still be there. Suppose there was this stupid law that said rape was okay and if you tried to stop one you would suffer the death penalty. You arrive on the scene like John Wayne and attempt a rescue. You are caught in the act of heroism and soon executed.

Was the law binding on you even though it violated all sense of right and wrong?

Yes, you did not escape the penalty.

Why would you think otherwise?

I feel like I am arguing with someone who is just dreaming up things that make no sense to be arguing about for the hell of it. JJ (Previous Post) Where do you get that idea? Of course the Constitution gives us rights. That’s why we have different rights here than people in other countries.

Blayne The constitution purports to protect rights it does not grant them. The right to bear arms in self defense like all rights has always existed just like gravity.

JJ Gravity exists in North Korea, but the right to bear arms does not exist. They do not have that right no matter how many times you shout it from the rooftops. If a Constitution like ours were in force there then they would have the right. And where would it come from? Not osmosis, but the Constitution.

Your confusing “a right” with something that is moral, correct, or right. It would be the right thing to do to give North Koreans the right to bear arms, but presently they do not have the right.

Blayne: So how could it grant rights that it doesn’t even list?

JJ See above.

Rights that were already in existence were merely guaranteed by the Constitution, but rights that were not in existence were created by it as well as protected. Before the Constitution, under the British rule, they did not have a right of protection against unreasonable searches. The Constitution granted that right and protected it.

Blayne: I am amazed at the lack of understanding. North Koreans have the same rights as we do as do all men.

JJ Then why can’t they have guns?

Are you sure you’re just not trying to give me a bad time as a hoot?

Blayne: Just because they are being oppressed and do not have power to overcome their oppressors at the moment does not mean they do not have the right to bear arms rise up and overthrow their oppressors just like we did in the 18th century.

JJ If they try and bear arms now they will be put to death. Obviously the right to bear arms does not exist there. If they overthrew their government they could establish that right in the future, but it does not exist now. I feel kind of silly having to explain this.

Blayne The idea that a piece of paper can grant rights is amazing. It is just an illustration of existing rights…

JJ If the ruling powers accept that piece of paper then the rights written there are granted. Of course, it is not the physical paper itself that grants the rights but the power of the words thereon which were initiated by intelligent effort and have a life of their own.

JJ (Previous Post) And what principle have I abandoned? The answer is none.

Blayne: You have abandon the principle of freedom and justice.

JJ That accusation is completely untrue with absolutely nothing to back it up – and beneath you.

Blayne: Where we disagree is that unsubstantiated accusations constitute an act of war.

JJ I have no idea what you are talking about here.

JJ (Previous Post) Then explain how slavery was both moral and legal if only the moral thing is legal.

Blayne Slavery was immoral and unconstitutional that was the basis for the argument for abolishing it. Slaves were not seen as men they were seen largely as animals which of course was an illusion but this was their reasoning in denying them the same rights as all men.

JJ If slavery was unconstitutional then why did we need a constitutional amendment to make it unconstitutional and illegal???

Legalities concerning slaves were referenced three times in the Constitution

Section 2 of Article I states that apart from free persons “all other persons,” meaning slaves, are each to be counted as three-fifths of a white person for the purpose of apportioning congressional representatives on the basis of population. Section 9 of Article I states that the importation of “such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit,” meaning slaves, would be permitted until 1808. And Section 2 of Article IV directs that persons “held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another,” meaning fugitive slaves, were to be returned to their owners.

Obviously the people thought slavery was Constitutional as many thousands of people owned them and were not prosecuted for breaking the law. It was also immoral to relegate them to being considered property.

You’re wrong on this point. Slavery was both immoral and legal in early America. It was also legal and immoral in Ancient Rome and Greece and many other nations.

Blayne LOL tell me what’s the difference between Hitler and the thugs I described except scale? Nothing!

JJ Big difference. The thugs are still subject to government and the law. Hitler was the government and the law.

Blayne They say unconstitutional laws are not binding as you keep claiming they are. Of course you omitted it here it clearly says such laws are not binding confers no authority AS IF IT HAD NEVER BEEN PASSED etc etc. it refutes your argument 110% ! Not it can be thrown out later. It clearly means it is null and void the minute it is passed like it never existed. I could post a dozen more and I am sure you would deny them also. Clearly you are to attached to your belief here to see the truth.

JJ I covered this a while back but let me recap. A law, once passed, has binding penalties are passed upon violators. Even if the law seems to obviously go against the Constitution it will still be in play and enforced until it is overturned. You can’t just wave a piece of paper and say “I’m not paying income tax because it is unconstitutional,” and then think you will be left alone because your proclamation has negated the law.

JJ (Previous Post) Blayne then gives a discourse on parking tickets and does not address the fact that it would be impossible to give every crime a jury trial.

Blayne The point you missed is that you assume everything that ends up in court is a crime based on your belief all legislation is binding.

JJ It’s not a belief. It is a fact that once a law is on the books it is binding until it is overturned. If I am wrong give me one example.

Blayne However if we actually followed the law we would have a minute fraction of cases and they could all be easily tried by jury.

JJ I’m with you on throwing out a lot of bad and unnecessary law but its unlikely to happen any time soon. Meanwhile the laws we have are enforceable unless overturned.

Blayne We have a lot of attorneys making a living off the misery and suffering of society much of which they cause and while contributing nothing to society. Sorry If I did not make that clear.

JJ You’ve always been clear as a bell on that point.

Blayne You can deny it all you want. I have used traditional application not assumptions, corruption does not make a fact an assumption. You are using typical leftist rhetoric saying the 5th and 6th amendments have nothing to do with each other. The left uses the same BS on the second amendment to say it was talking about only the militia not the people when every other amendment clearly denotes the people and the 2nd of no exception. JJ My points concerning two Amendments are nothing like the Left’s interpretation of one Amendment – the Second Amendment. There is no hard evidence that the sixth explains the fifth anymore than the seventh explains the sixth. All the Amendments paint a full picture but are independent entities.

Blayne: Still the 6th guarantees every man accused of a crime a trial by jury so any due process must offer every man that right outlined in the 6th. How you can extrapolate anything other then that is beyond all reason and logic.

JJ It says: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial,…”

In Awlaki’s case he was not criminally prosecuted but treated as an enemy combatant so one could argue the speedy trial does not apply. Also the Sixth says one should be tried in the district where the crime was committed. How could we have a jury trial for him in Yemen?

Blayne Yeah heaven forbid anyone should want government to follow the law that binds them down from mischief, why they must be extremists…

JJ I guess I’m an extremist then.

Blayne It is very interesting that you agree with the quote yet try to paint me as a fundamentalist for espousing it as part of my philosophy.

JJ You seem to overlook the fact that we both agree that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and all other laws are supposed to be subject to it. We also both embrace the Principle of freedom to the best of our abilities. We just interpret things differently.

You think that a law has to be good righteous and moral before it is binding on citizens. You are the only person I have ever come across that thinks this way.

Everyone I know sees that there are some bad laws out there that have little to do with morality that can land us in jail if we violate them. Why you do not see this is very mysterious.

Oct 26, 2011
Re: anti-government movement claptrap

Dan: You said it brother, THEY do that kinda stuff to keep the sovereign man down. My 2nd cousin on my mother’s side had a friend that said his buddy knew someone who … and remember to stay under cover when you see them there chemtrails in the sky.

JJ Chemtrails, Moon landing hoax, false flag 911, secret NASA missions, Ron Paul enthusiast, Confederate supporter, Illuminati conspiracy, literalist view of the Constitution, Planet X, tax protesters… The are all so different subjects but believers are so much the same.

Oct 26, 2011
Re: anti-government movement claptrap

Blayne: Wow so we should not take the constitution literally?..So tell me what is it allegorical for?

And Ron Paul enthusiast? How about JJ Dewey enthusiast? Painting with quite a broad brush there aren’t you…

JJ Yeah, I might have stepped over the line but couldn’t resist… There’s a lot of interlapping in that list though.

People get in trouble when they take anything too literally whether it be the Constitution, the Bible, DK, me, or the voice of God himself. Judgement and discernment must always be in play or the pilgrim will be deceived.

Comet Elenin No More

This may be the last we hear of Comet Elenin. At least Blayne and I agreed on that.

Elenin Link


Copyright 2011 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

(You do not have to log in to add comments)

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go Here

Keys Writings, Part 14

This entry is part 28 of 34 in the series 2011C

Oct 21, 2011
Re: Letter of the Law 1.1

I don’t believe the Constitution differentiates between criminal and commercial law. You can go to jail over a traffic violation just as you can burglary. My friend Wayne went to jail several times over traffic violations without a jury trial. I didn’t see any reason to break the law down to its various parts when the Constitution did not.

Oct 21, 2011
Re: Letter of the Law

Eke: “The constitution is made for man and not man made for constitution.”

JJ Great statement Eke.

Oct 21, 2011
Re: Muammar Gaddafi Killed

Have you ever seen a worse job of taking a video than the one associated with Gaddafi’s killing? You’d think for such a historical event someone would have made sure the camera was steady and focused. As it is it looks like it was filmed by someone wacked out on LSD dancing around a fire pit.

Oct 22, 2011
Re: Letter of the Law

I’ve been checking into what you said Larry and found a few things. I couldn’t find any evidence though that something like a speeding ticket would fall under commercial law. Do you have a reference on that? Most are in a different category than felonies or misdemeanors, I know that.

You are right that normal traffic tickets are called infractions. Others though can lead to misdemeanors or felonies such as DUIs, reckless driving, refusing to sign or pay a ticket, driving without auto insurance and failure to stop at the scene of an accident.

The next time I get my driver’s license I’ll have to see what I actually signed on for.

Now there are those who drive with no license and they didn’t sign up or agree to anything yet they can be charged with a number of crimes while driving and sent to jail like my friend Wayne. Speeding without a license has nothing to do with morality but it can certainly get you in trouble.

The Fifth Amendment says:

No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

When one is fined for speeding he is indeed deprived of property (his money) without due process as some define it.

When I was talking about due process of law I was talking about all laws that can lead to loss of life liberty or property. That does lump the various categories together. I see nothing wrong with this as it has nothing to do with saying all law is the same or currently dealt with the same way. Why you thought I was saying such a thing is a mystery and such technicality has nothing to do with a ring-pass-not.

That said, thanks for your information on the various kinds of law. I learned several things.

Oct 22, 2011
Molecular Difficulties

A short time ago it was suggested that a molecule could be created through online communications. One of the things that will have to be dealt with in a molecule will be various disagreements. Since we had one here I thought it may be a good opportunity to illustrate two things. One is how difficult and slow it is to solve any problem online. We could have probably hashed out this Awlaki problem in person within an hour or so but here we have spent many days and intensive hours in writing and still we have not gotten beyond the first simple point of whether Obama’s action was legal.

The second problem that is illustrated is how difficult it is to solve personality disagreements when they come up. What seems simple and clear to some is very complex to others.

Another problem is that many tune out when a round of disagreements materialize whereas in person most people are willing to wade through a couple hours of arbitration.

I tried to break down the various elements of the problem in an attempt to make it solvable. If we started out talking about what is right or wrong then emotions will run high. I thought I would begin by examining whether or not the action was legal – which should have had nothing to do with good or bad, but still we did not escape confronting that from the beginning.

I think that seeing the futility here of bringing harmony between two good people illustrates the difficulty we will face in creating a united Molecule. Obviously, we will need to draw from a large pool of seekers to create the first unified molecule.

After the first one is created the second will be easier, however.

This arguing process is becoming very time consuming and not doing anything to convince our holdout – Blayne. What do you think? Should we continue on this subject or not?

Oct 23, 2011
The First Point 101
My Friends,

Thanks for your feedback. It sounds like the group would like us to see this subject through to see where it goes. Okay.. I’ll cooperate.

As you know, I’ve tried to simplify the discussion by breaking the conflict down to its simplest parts. This sometimes can be quite beneficial. Suppose person A is arguing with person B about Topic C. Perhaps Topic C is composed of five different parts and the two actually agree on four of those parts. This means the path to union is found in a correct understanding of the fifth part.

On the other hand, if they disagree on four out of five of the parts then the division is pretty wide and agreement will be difficult to negotiate.

The funny part about point one is that both Blayne and Duke thought the assassination of Awlaki was illegal, as well as myself. It turns out that looking into it changed my mind and caused strong disagreement from Blayne. I do not recall Duke even weighing in on the legality since the analysis began – so maybe they both disagree with my thoughts so far.

Let us first summarize where we are on point one.

Arguments can be made either way on this and both sides have their points.

One side claims it is illegal because Awlaki is an American citizen. As such before he can be punished he needs to be arrested, read his rights and then given a jury trial. Only then can we punish him. This they say is mandated under the Constitution.

The other side claims the Constitution is not so black and white and during a time of war we can attack those who are working to destroy this country whether they are citizens or not.

I found one scientific poll on this and 73% of the population agree with the second side.

Poll Link

The New York Times cites reasoning that Obama’s attorneys give for the action being legal. Among them are:

“The legal analysis, in essence, concluded that Mr. Awlaki could be legally killed, if it was not feasible to capture him, because intelligence agencies said he was taking part in the war between the United States and Al Qaeda and posed a significant threat to Americans, as well as because Yemeni authorities were unable or unwilling to stop him.

“Based on those premises, the Justice Department concluded that Mr. Awlaki was covered by the authorization to use military force against Al Qaeda that Congress enacted shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 — meaning that he was a lawful target in the armed conflict unless some other legal prohibition trumped that authority.

“The memo concluded that what was reasonable, and the process that was due, was different for Mr. Awlaki than for an ordinary criminal. It cited court cases allowing American citizens who had joined an enemy’s forces to be detained or prosecuted in a military court just like noncitizen enemies.”

NYT Link

In my opinion the second side makes the strongest case. Suppose an American citizen had an atomic bomb pointed at New York and we had the chance to take him out before he pressed the button. Would we allow millions of people to die just so we can adhere to a black and white surface interpretation of the Constitution?

No. This does not make sense.

So far all judges and attorneys involved in decision-making have deemed the action legal and its legality thus stands unless the some action through the legal system proves otherwise. If this were to happen then I would agree that the action is illegal, even though I wouldn’t agree with that assessment.

Question: Is there anyone besides Blayne that disagrees with my conclusion? If so, why?

Oct 23, 2011
Re: Cyclopean vision

Good points, John. I’m sure that advanced beings with one eye do not suffer from the limitations of seeing that one of us have with one eye. Evolution always goes forward, not backwards. It is quite possible they can see more with the eye closed than we can see with both eyes open and that eye works in combination with other sight centers they use creating not only three dimensional seeing but dimensions we cannot even see. There are reasons the masonic symbol is called the “all-seeing eye.”

Oct 23, 2011
Re: Molecular Difficulties

Larry W JJ quote, “…we see that the Molecule is basically a representative government, but with maximum authority (which can be removed at any time) in the hands of the leaders. It follows the Middle Way principle and uses the best of the democratic system combined with the efficient elements of the authoritarian system.”

I think if you look at the context where you got that quote, Dan, you will see JJ was talking about the business molecular relationship there.

JJ This principle basically applies to the spiritual molecule as well.

Oct 23, 2011
Re: Molecular Difficulties

Good point Rick. If there is a principle involved you are on to it. Creation involves going from the disorganized to an almost perfect organization. In between there will be broken eggs. Perhaps we can call this “the broken eggs principle.” Without the broken eggs you will not have that great tasting omelet.

Oct 24, 2011
New Principle
What springs to mind is the ‘Push the Boundary’ Principle. Children do it all the time, and it seems a natural aspect to growth.

The flip side is that those in power under glamour and illusion will also use it to their own gain, more often than not to the detriment of others. Once a precedent is set, it can be like opening a new door of opportunity for them.

JJ Glad to see you guys thinking about principles.

There is indeed a principle involved and “Push the Boundary” is a great name to describe one of its effects. But this is a branch of the real principle which gives us an opportunity to do some discovery:

Question: What is the real principle behind this Push the Boundary force and how it works?

Oct 24, 2011 Re: Moving Onward

Duke: Lincoln suspended civil liberties during an undeclared war, but so far we have not elected someone so evil as to twist that into justification for imprisoning political opponents.


Good point.

Oct 25, 2011
Letter of the Law 1.2

Blayne: I admit I could have a blind spot. However I go to great lengths to try and re-examine things when told that or several I respect disagree with me. Could I still be missing it? Sure but after going over the facts several times there is nothing to suggest to me that I am missing something here.

JJ Unfortunately, facts are not enough to assure a correct decision. A number of us here are familiar with the same facts yet come to different conclusions. You have come to one conclusion and everyone else with the same facts has come to another.

And why is this?

It isn’t because you are honing in on some fact the rest is missing. Instead, it is that you have a strong attachment to certain values or ideals that are not that all-important to the rest of us. This causes you to take the same facts we use and come to an entirely different conclusion.

And what is that difference in values? You give a hint in your next statement.

Blayne: I hear yours and others reasoning and it is contrary to the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

JJ This is not the core reason for most of our disagreements but a branch reason. We’ll deal with this for now.

First, innocent until proven guilty, is not a principle, but a procedure and not all nations practice it or believe in using it. In reality a person is guilty the instant he commits a crime. Instead of being a principle it is a procedure that has a place in our legal system.

If you believe it to be a principle then I can see why you would be fairly black and white that it must always transpire just as gravity always works.

So, here seems to be the reason we cannot agree on the first point.

You have a black and white view where the Solomon principle does not even apply, no exceptions, a person should be presumed innocent until found innocent or guilty by a jury trial.

I do not think anyone else here thinks that way. Here is my view that most here seem to support.

Innocent until proven guilty is a procedure and all procedures are subject to exceptions. In other words, there are times when the procedure does much more harm than good and in such cases they should be abandoned and replaced by something more efficient.

For instance, if we had evidence that a certain citizen was going to detonate a nuclear bomb in New York and there was not time to follow standard procedure then to hell with procedure – let us instead save millions of lives and neutralize the situation anyway possible. The people, as the final arbitrators of the law, would support such an action.

This is where the Second Key of judgment comes in.

Wise judgment always trumps procedure from a higher point of view.

Does this mean that the legal procedure of innocent until proven guilty is meaningless? No, of course not. All of our laws and legal procedures stand as written unless sound judgment and the will of the people decrees they should be overridden.

Does this mean that we should make a list of 10,000 exceptions to our legal procedures?

No. This again goes against the key of judgment. The people will have a feel for when a wise judgment is made that overrides procedure and if the judgment is in a gray area they will be forgiving.

Obama taking out Awlaki was in a gray area, but 73% of the people support it which gives evidence that good judgment was used.

Blayne I can’t do much more then that if all the arguments don’t make logical sense to me, and I am not going to concede until they do.

JJ The arguments do not make sense because they do not harmonize with that to which you give great value. If your values were the same as the rest of the group then the arguments would start to make sense.

Blayne Your excuse that I am just being a fundamentalist here does not apply because we are dealing with foundation principles of justice here; innocent until proven guilty.

JJ Justice and “innocent until proven guilty in a court of law” are two very different things. True justice is only created by good judgment. “Innocent until proven guilty” requires no judgment but is a black and white procedure that usually helps insure justice, but not always. We should always seek justice, but we should not always seek the same black and white procedure.

And since we are dealing with black and white things the idea of “innocent until proven guilty” rarely happens even in a jury trial. Sometimes a person is proven guilty, as was O J Simpson. He was judged innocent because of bias. Other times there is not solid evidence of guilt but the guy is still found guilty. Rarely is a person proven guilty beyond any doubt.

You want “innocent until proven guilty by a jury trial” for every crime which is a different animal than a mere “innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Those who judged the Awlaki situation most likely presumed he was innocent until the evidence convinced them beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty of treason and more. So the procedure was most likely applied there, but without a jury trial. You do not have to have a jury trial to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. On the other hand, a jury trial does not always establish a judgment beyond a reasonable doubt as in O J Simpson.

Blayne Basically what you are saying is because judges and government have perverted the foundations of law through precedent we have to just go with it.

JJ Perverted is your choice of wording not mine. What perversion are you talking about?

If a law is declared legal by constitutionally appointed judges and I do not agree with that law then it is still the law and legal and binding in your society. And what do you suggest we do with laws we do not like – break them and go to jail? Complain about them? That doesn’t do much good. If a person is really outraged then he should seek to make changes.

Blayne So where do we draw the line?

JJ Once something is legal there is no line to draw. It is just legal and there is nothing you can do about it in the short term. You can disagree with it but you will still be subject to it until it is changed.

Blayne: Do we just abandon the principles of justice and allow ourselves to devolve until all the principles are no longer adhered to in any meaningful way because generations of corruption are the precedent?

JJ I’m certainly not abandoning any of my principles.

Blayne First of all the constitution does not give any rights at all.

JJ Where do you get that idea? Of course the Constitution gives us rights. That’s why we have different rights here than people in other countries.

We have the right to bear arms here but in North Korea they do not. What gives us that right where the North Koreans do not have it?

The Constitution and the will to uphold it.

We have many rights because of the Constitution that many in other countries just do not have.

There is a difference between something being right (correct) and “a right.”

Blayne Just because all branches approve does not mean it is lawful.

JJ Wow. If all branches of government cannot make a law which is legal then who can? By your reasoning then it would seem that nothing legal exists anywhere if legality cannot be decided by anyone living.

Blayne: So according to you since that is the reality we might as well abandon its principles.

JJ And what principle have I abandoned? The answer is none.

Blayne In light of this (the power of juries) why is it so hard for you to understand that a star chamber of attorneys approving hits is wrong and un-American?

JJ Not all legal decisions in the universe are made by juries. In Awlaki’s case the attorneys advised but did not make the decision. I understand it was the military in connection with Obama giving final approval. If you try and apply one solution to all legal problems this will create more problems than it solves.

Blayne: The Jury is the the forth branch and government and the most important.

JJ Yes juries are extremely important and need to be restored to their rightful place. They even have power to negate Constitutional law. But in times of war many things do not go through juries. One size does not fit all.

Blayne What is not logical about law needing to be foundationally moral? It is perfectly logical.

JJ You are not hearing me. I said nothing even close to this conclusion you have conjured. Whenever possible a law should be moral. I have NEVER said anything contrary to this.

BUT I have said that a law does not have to be moral to be legal. If those who have power to make law pass a law that says slavery is legal then it would be legal, but that wouldn’t make it moral. Oh, wait, we’ve already had a law like that which was Constitutional.

Blayne What is not logical is putting the stamp of some legislative and judicial process on something immoral and calling it legal.

JJ It happens now and then but it’s still legal just as immoral slavery once was.

Blayne: You still haven’t addressed the rape law scenario. Calling that legal would be absurd that is what is called “color of law” meaning it has the color of law but is not really law as it is immoral or harmful.

JJ Just as slavery was legal when declared legal by the authorities even so would rape be legal if it was passed as a law. In some countries rape is pretty much legal and one can legally rape his wife or even beat her. Not much morality there in what is legal – but it is still legal.

JJ (Previous Post) I keep telling you this first point has nothing to do with right and wrong, but legal and illegal. They are two different things.

Blayne And you are wrong here it is in our jurisprudence. I have studied this stuff in depth.

JJ Then explain how slavery was both moral and legal if only the moral thing is legal.

Blayne: Basically what you are saying is if some group of thugs comes and takes over your neighborhood or town and starts abusing everyone and there is no one to stop them since that is the reality then that makes it legal as they are the new law.

JJ That’s crazy talk. We have a legal system set up and those who operate outside of the system cannot decide what is legal within that system.

On the other hand, if a group of thugs overthrew our government and instituted their own then they would have power to decide what was legal, just as Hitler did when he took over Germany.

You do not seem to be able to get it in your head that legal is not always moral. It was legal to abuse Jews in Hitler’s Germany but that was not right or moral.

You have a very strange ephemeral idea of what legal is and that is making this discussion a thousand times more complicated than in talking with anyone else here about this subject.

Blayne What you are saying in essence is might makes right or legal in this case.

JJ No. I’m not saying anything close to that. Legal is not always right. Might has not produced bad law here but it is the result of legal representatives we have chosen through election.

Blayne When in fact everyone knows it is not legal because it is not right. Sure everyone knows that is the reality but that does not make it legal. Well what the heck here is a couple references the second one a US supreme court ruling that bad laws are not law at all:

(Wordy legal quotations omitted)

JJ Your quotations say nothing about laws being moral only that they need to be in harmony with the Constitution or they can be thrown out. Both sides of the argument already believe that so why spend so much time on this?

The problem is that you think it is your sense of morality that determines Constitutional law rather than constitutionally appointed judges. Everyone thinks their interpretation of the Constitution is the right one and to avoid bedlam certain judges must be appointed to interpret law.

Blayne (Previous Post) So far each point that you have tried to say was open to interpretation in the constitution I have easily refuted and pointed out the plain meaning.

JJ (Previous Post) I don’t recall you refuting even one that I have not demolished. Care to refresh my memory one even one thing.

Blayne Sure you said that due process of law in the 5th Amendment has no clear meaning leaving the door open to interpretation to allow star chambers of politically connected attorneys to order hits on American citizens. The sixth amendment defines due process as trial by jury by saying all are entitled to it. It could not be much more clear then that.

JJ I didn’t say “no clear meaning” I said “It can indeed be argued.” The President, his attorneys and military chiefs in a time of war are hardly a star chamber. The sixth amendment is a separate entity from the fifth and doesn’t even contain the phrase “due process.” How can it be defining something it does not even reference??? Due process merely means a legal process.

I don’ think you’ve refuted anything here.

JJ (Previous Post) So you maintain then that EVERY single crime needs a jury trial. You are really in a minuscule minority here. Even applying this to one crime, parking tickets for example, would be crazy talk.

JJ Blayne then gives a discourse on parking tickets and does not address the fact that it would be impossible to give every crime a jury trial.

Blayne What part of the Constitution being the law of the land do you not understand? I have showed you twice now how it DOES define due process and has been used in that definition.

JJ No you have not. You keep referencing the Sixth Amendment that does not even contain the words “due process” neither does it define the term. It is not clearly defined anywhere in the Constitution.

You are using traditional assumptions.

Blayne So you refuse to acknowledge the clear language of the 6th amendment that all men are guaranteed trial by jury. If all men accused of a crime are guaranteed such how is it that due process could be anything else? It is illogical to think otherwise.

JJ The sixth amendment does not even use the term “due process” is but speaks of some legalities which can be part (but not the whole) of due process.

The 14th Amendment says: “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;”

This gives the only other hint as to what due process is. Note the term “due process of law.”

Due process is merely considered to be following that which is legal. Most of the legal minds agree that Obama’s action was legal along with 73% of the people and, after all, the people are the final judge of the law.

Blayne: “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.” – Thomas Jefferson

JJ Good quote. He is in harmony with my thinking.

Blayne: We know what the Founders meant when they wrote it we have plenty of their writings of them telling us what they meant, as if the language of it was not plain enough.

JJ Not all the founders were in agreement on the contents of the Constitution. What they said may have influence on a judge’s interpretation but what is written in the actual Constitution is paramount and many of the lines are subject to interpretation. If you do not think so then you are in a very tiny minority.

You seem to think that a dozen people can read any line in the document and the wording is so clear that all will come to the same conclusion. This is La La Land thinking and history proves you absolutely incorrect. You and I who are both libertarians and we cannot even agree on many lines and you and I would both unitedly disagree with many Leftist interpretations.

Blayne: Tell me what is the spirit of the words of “In ALL criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury” It says “all” not some.

JJ Awlaki was notified a year before his execution that that he was a wanted man and if he could not be captured and tried by jury he would be taken out. He had a year to exercise his right to a jury trial, but refused. So the word ALL did include Awlaki. He was then turned over to the due process of a military action.

What is and is not a criminal prosecution is also subject to interpretation.

Your thinking that everything in the document is crystal clear and no interpretation is needed is strange indeed and none of the Founders support you in this thinking. If there were not numerous ways of looking at the words and interpreting the words then we wouldn’t even need judges for this purpose. The Founders would not have created the Supreme Court if no interpretation of the Constitution was needed..

Blayne: I in fact would like to abolish the constitution.

JJ Wow. Who would have thought? What would you have in its place?

Blayne: So you can stop trying to associate me with the fundamentalist moniker.

JJ Pick six people here and ask them whether or not you sound very fundamentalist in your interpretation of the Constitution.

Blayne’s quote: “In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution.” Thomas Jefferson.

JJ Again – a good quote.

JJ (Previous Post) This is like listening to the extreme religious fundamentalist say something like:

“Jesus says I should pluck out my eye if it offends and my eyes caused me to lust after a woman so I guess I’ll pluck them out.”

Just like that scripture has shades of meaning even so are there differing ways to interpret the Constitution.

Blayne And this is like listening to a liberal leftist saying oh the constitution is a living document and it means what ever some judge Attorney or the president says it means as long as he agrees with my liberal belief’s.

JJ This is the first time in my life I have been compared to a liberal leftist.

When leftists speak of the Constitution being a living document they are NOT referring to the fact that intelligent people can have differing interpretations. They are saying that they should be able to negate what is written as immoral and create law true their version of what is right and moral rather than by what is written or by adding amendments. I am totally against the leftist view of the “living document” as they understand it.

JJ (Previous Post) And how do you know that the decision of a jury is true. You don’t. There is not 100% surety in any decision made. Without some element of trust nothing can get done. With too much everything falls apart. This is why the Key of Judgment is so important.

Blayne This is getting ridiculous. Nothing is perfect the point is all the evidence is heard by an impartial jury not a bunch of politically connected attorneys who are biased to an agenda. The attorneys are supposed to be making the case to a jury not ordering deaths.

JJ The question under consideration is – was the action legal? If it was then there was probably no more bias involved than would occur in the regular jury process. It looks like our main difference in thinking.

You think that a law has to fit in with your version of what is Constitutional, right and moral to be legal.

I think that laws are legal, whether I think they are right or not, if they have been created through our Constitutional process.

I’d say that over 90% of the people would agree with me on this and when 90% of the people support what is deemed to be legal then that legality will indeed be upheld until it is changed by new law.

I’m talking about legalities here, not whether Obama made the best possible choice in dealing with Awlaki. That comes later.


Copyright 2011 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

(You do not have to log in to add comments)

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go Here

Keys Writings, Part 13

This entry is part 27 of 34 in the series 2011C

Oct 19, 2011
Message to Blayne

I hope you don’t think I’m coming down too hard on you. Perhaps a few positive words are in order.

Overall you have one of the finest minds that I have come across and when battling ignorance I am always overjoyed to have you on my side. I think that if you and I had been attorneys together we could have become famous for winning cases.

You remind me somewhat of Paul who was independent, operated out of the box and fiercely went his own way whether Peter and the others agreed or not.

You also remind me of my beloved friend Wayne (whose thinking was a lot like yours) with whom I also had many strong disagreements. Like you he was a person that I could have passionate arguments with yet still keep as a great friend who would do most anything for me and I for him.

Oct 19, 2011
Re: Conclusion for Consideration


Your God says to kill Americans who have not been given their due process rights under the 5th Amendment? The following is Ron Paul’s thoughts on the matter:

JJ Moses had many of his enemies taken out without any due process and many of them were not an imminent threat.

Oct 20, 2011
Question Three
Question Three: The next natural question is would such an action be the right thing to do? This question has already been tossed around like crazy and no agreement has been reached. Instead of asking that question now let us ask this? If such an action were legal under what circumstances would it be the right thing to do?

Let us expand this question a bit. Here are some yes or no questions. Would it be alright to assassinate Awlaki if evidence indicated there was a 50% chance he was involved in plotting terrorist acts against.

A 75% chance?

A 90% chance?

A 99% chance?

A 99.9% chance?

Why not 100%? Because there is never 100% surety in any judgment of guilt or innocent.

Now let us suppose that we had firm intelligence that Awlaki was heading up a group that gained possession of a nuclear weapon and they had plans to detonate it in Washington DC. We receive intelligence that the group is gathered in a certain location in Yemen. We could send a cruise missile that would destroy the entire group as well as put the bomb out of commission. Should we act now?

Should we have lots of discussion and legal research first, miss the opportunity and take our chances

Should we take him out even if we are violating the a number of laws in doing so?

Oct 20, 2011
Re: Conclusion for Consideration

This is a consideration indeed but I doubt if they expected that 80% of murders would escape the jury process. I think the point to take in consideration is that no matter how intelligent the initiators are that they cannot foresee all the results of their work and cannot include all the safeguards necessary. You’d think the wording of the Second Amendment would be plain enough but if the Founders could have seen into the future they would have just left off the reference to militias.

Oct 21, 2011
Letter of the Law 1.1
JJ quoting Blayne Nowhere have I said this sort of thing is new.

JJ (from last post) You had me fooled. Here is what you said in post # 54101

“This sort of thing is unprecedented in American history and is the act of a dictator pure and simple. This is not supposed to happen in America.”

You have also talked about this setting a bad precedent many times as if such a precedent had not been set before.

Blayne: You have taken this out of context you do this a lot when we disagree and it clouds the issue. I went on to explain when questioned earlier on this very thing that it is unprecedented for the president to order a hit on an American citizen and then announce it publicly as if it is no big deal.

JJ It was in context for that post and there was nothing in post #541012 that indicated otherwise. Sure you have said other things in your dozens of posts on this subject. Am I supposed to piece them all together, read your mind and come up with an acceptable conclusion???

Even taking into consideration that you said (in another post) that “it is unprecedented for the president to order a hit on an American citizen and then announce it publicly” does not change the meaning of this statement in question you made:

“This sort of thing is unprecedented in American history and is the act of a dictator pure and simple. This is not supposed to happen in America.”

Both of your statements could be your true meaning as they do not contradict. It could be the first such hit ordered by an American President and apart from that it could be an unprecedented act.

This is an example of why others do not think you see the other side or yield a point.

You clearly said that “”This sort of thing is unprecedented in American history..” and nothing in that post or any other says otherwise.

When I read that I didn’t think you were referring exclusively to the president’s actions but seemed to be speaking generally.

You do not seem to be able to put yourself in the readers shoes to the point that you can see how your words were interpreted to mean what they seemed to say in the context of that post.

This causes you to project an image of being so determined to be right that you cannot concede a little and say something like:

“Yeah I can see how that statement could come across that way. Sorry about the confusion. Here’s what I really meant to say.”

JJ (Previous post) Just because you give your reasoning (which is in this case unconvincing) does not mean you have considered the opposing views. It sounds more like your mind was just set in stone and you found what you were looking for – for you anyway, but not for anyone else here.

Blayne: You’re entitled to your opinion. However basically you have just called me a liar. Just because you are unconvinced of my reasoning is no reason to assume I have not considered others opinions.

JJ I’ll practice what I preach and yield here as I just suggested you do. I can see how you might read my statement that way, but it is certainly not what I meant. I believe you are a very honest individual and that you are a big believer in telling the truth.

I know that you always think you give the other side of an argument fair consideration, but that doesn’t mean you actually do.

For instance, I remember a lifetime ago when I was a strong believer in the Mormon church. I thought I gave full consideration to arguments against my beliefs in church doctrine. For instance, I didn’t accept reincarnation even though I had taken people back into past lives as heard them speak in different accents and reveal things they couldn’t have known in this life. When I rejected this as evidence I really believed I was giving both sides of the argument full consideration.

Now, on hindsight I can see that I was not. I was not lying when I thought I was seeing both sides fairly. I just had a blind spot due to my strong fixation on my belief system at the time.

Even so I think you believe yourself to be truthful when you say you’re seeing both sides, but in my opinion you are caught in an illusion that needs dispelled.

This is why I have tried to break this argument down into pieces so we can look at them one at a time and discover where the real problem lies in reaching reasonable conclusions all rational minds here can accept.;

JJ (Previous Post) Like many laws there is more than one way to interpret this…

Blayne: The legal system is already bogged down and there is no justice and we are facing disaster precisely because we do not follow the law here.

JJ Law is not based on how fundamentalists interpret original documents but how it has been applied and interpreted by judges as well as altered by new clarifying law over the years. This is the reality that makes laws that are now legal. You do not seem to accept this reality which I and most people do.

That doesn’t mean I agree with all the laws, but unlike you I accept their reality. I don’t have to agree with a law to accept that it is the law. You seem to think you have to agree.

A fundamentalist could probably argue that most speed limit laws are unconstitutional and refuse to recognize them. Now I do not like speed limit laws and would be happy to see most of them eliminated, but I recognize their reality that they are indeed legal within our system, even though permission to create them was not spelled out by the Founders.

So, overall the system has evolved legally with Congress adding to and constitutionally appointed judges interpreting the law we are governed by. We thus follow law – some good and some not so good, but laws nevertheless.

Blayne It’s pretty clear that all crimes should be tried by jury in Law and historical precedent.

JJ The jury system doesn’t have time to judge more than 20% of the murders let alone traffic tickets and thousands of other infractions. I think you are being unreasonable here.

Blayne: Your saying only a certain percentage are actually tried by a jury is a red herring to say the least.

JJ It’s not a red herring at all but makes the point that many points of the Constitution cannot be applied in black and white literal mindset. That’s why we have judges as well as Congress to pass clarifying laws.

Blayne Most these people WAVED THEIR RIGHT to a trial by jury.

JJ And where in the Constitution does it give them that right? Even you are using wiggle room here.

Blayne: Using this to try and justify assassination of an American citizen does not apply.

JJ I was using it to show that a hard-core fundamentalist black and white interpretation is often not practical.

Blayne: The few exceptions are self defense when one must kill or harm someone in self defense and war which is basically self defense on a massive scale.

JJ But we are in a war with terrorists which has been approved by all branches of government making it Constitutional. Therefore the president as Commander in chief can do what is necessary to carry out the war unless stopped by the legal system, Congress or the people themselves.

Blayne: The Jury is supposed to judge the case not the Judge he is supposed to be impartial and only keep order during the trial period.

JJ This is a good point. The Founders realized that no law was perfect, not even Constitutional law. Therefore they created juries to be the final arbitrators. They have the final say on law and can even legally throw it out or disregard it – even if it is constitutional. The legal system tries to hide this power from juries and unfortunately, sometimes a jurist can be held in contempt for using this power.

Blayne: Judges have no authority to make law…

JJ They do have Constitutional power to interpret law which often does create new applications of the law. Some could argue that this makes new law.

Other times they do actually make new law from something not even written and this is a wrong use of power that the system has no effective way to correct. This needs to be addressed, but it has little to do with the subject at hand.

Blayne Also this idea that we can separate legal from moral or right is not correct. Laws are supposed to be based on basic morality.

JJ Where do you get this idea? There are many laws that have nothing to do with morality such as speed limits, eminent domain, licensing, the qualifying age of our representatives, taxes, immigration, and many other laws are based on common sense – not morality.

I think that is one of the main reasons you cannot agree that the action on Awlaki was legal because in your mind it was not right. You seem to think that if a thing offends your sense of morality then it is not legal.

This is not logical and it is not true in the real world. Some laws offend my sense of morality also, but that does not make them illegal. If I break them I will suffer the consequences whether I agree or not.

Blayne If it is immoral and wrong to kill someone without a fair trial and hearing of all the evidence (except in self defense) then any law passed that allows it is no law at all.

JJ You’re not being logical here. If a law is passed and approved within our system then it is the law whether we like it or not.

I keep telling you this first point has nothing to do with right and wrong, but legal and illegal. They are two different things.

Blayne: I have to wonder why you left out my example of Churchill defying the group pressure when he thought it was wrong?

JJ I didn’t. You even quoted it in your post. Here it is again:

“There was only a couple times where Churchill had to stand against the many. More often than not his logic was strong enough that the many stood with him.”

I have no problem with you going against the majority. It is your right, which I support. It is my right to disagree with you though and attempt to show you the error of your reasoning.

Blayne You are telling me because 4 or 5 disagrees with me I must be wrong and haven’t considered their side.

JJ It’s not that others disagree but I see little evidence that you see opposing arguments through the others eyes.

Blayne: And I am telling you I have looked at the known evidence and found their side wanting.

JJ I’m sure that is true in your eyes.

Blayne: By the way. I have refuted all the arguments several times.

JJ I know you’ve argued all over the map on this with a number of members and you made some good points and this is why I jumped in to use this like a Molecular exercise and attempted to break the argument down to its parts.

The first hurdle is simply agreeing on the legality of the action – not the morality, or all the other points discussed.

Blayne: Sorry I will not just rubber stamp anything you or anyone says or Even God George Washington or Thomas Jefferson If it doesn’t make sense and is refuted by facts… 😉 Some people don’t like that and perhaps that is one of the sources of negativity..

JJ I felt a little disturbance in the force. That was my motivation in posting something more positive about you.

It’s fine with me that you don’t follow the crowd.

Blayne: I am adhering to the principles of freedom and liberty that a man is innocent until proven guilty…

JJ Awlaki was presumed innocent until those with legal power to judge judged otherwise. Whether they judged correctly has nothing to do with the first point. The point is they had the legal power to judge.

Blayne: What principle are you arguing from?

JJ Man made law is not directly based on a principle but determined by the will of the people who are involved. It is [probably loosely associated with the principle of intelligent organization under the Law of Economy. Sometimes what is legal is a million miles away from a principle. The Principle of freedom has nothing to do with whether a thing is legal or not. It used to be legal to own slaves, but that had nothing to do with the Principle of Freedom.

Blayne: Who are these legal minds that you think are so great?

JJ It doesn’t take a “great” legal mind to determine the legality of most things. It’s a fairly simple procedure that you seem to be making extremely complicated.

Blayne This is nothing more then an appeal to authority.

JJ Authorities have their place. What is legal is often determined by authorities, like it or not. Just because you do not like what is legal does not alter reality.

Blayne: Because some lawyer says something is one way or another does not make it so. Assuming these guys are the greatest legal minds because they are politically connected to get into these positions is naive at best. Attorneys are among the most ignorant of law of any group! These guys know how the corrupt non article 3 courts work and how to manipulate them for their own gain but they know little about the actual law. Being officers of said courts the courts also favor them despite their ignorance. The judge the defense attorney and the prosecutor all belong to the same club and their first duty is to protect the court and not their client yet few people see the huge conflict of interest here.

JJ Wow.. You are really negative on the legal system. If some alien came here and only listened to you he’d think we have no justice whatsoever and thugs are everywhere. Our system is not perfect but sometimes it gets things right.

But the point we are discussing has nothing to do with this red herring. We are not discussing right and wrong, but legal and illegal. Two very different things.

Blayne: My reasoning is sound that allowing this type of Assassination sets a precedent that could impact millions and future generations.

JJ This has nothing to do with whether the action was legal.

Blayne Instead of trying to minimize it to bolster your argument here you should be admonishing the opposing group they could ALL be wrong and it could impact millions but since you are part of that group it appears you could not bring yourself to jeopardize winning the argument by doing that.

JJ For the umpteenth time this part of the argument has nothing to do with right and wrong. The first point is to establish whether the action was legal or illegal.

Blayne: The varied interpretations of the constitution are just people trying to twist the meanings to their own agendas and or illusions.

JJ Several here have different interpretations of the Constitution. Are those who disagree with you just twisting things? I don’t think so. I think we are all interpreting it the best we can.

Blayne So far each point that you have tried to say was open to interpretation in the constitution I have easily refuted and pointed out the plain meaning.

JJ I don’t recall you refuting even one that I have not demolished. Care to refresh my memory one even one thing.

Blayne: Sounds to me like you prefer a bunch of people shouting he’s guilty he’s guilty kill him kill him and then trying to rubber stamp it with a bunch of lying attorneys, ignoring the principle of innocent until proven guilty…

JJ I think most people reading this will agree that you have an imagination going wild here concerning me.

Blayne: Your argument is based on your belief that due process means a bunch of politically connected attorneys with agendas said its ok. When I have pointed out the constitution clearly defines due process as trial by Jury

JJ And, using your reasoning, I could say that your argument of a jury trial for all is shows you rely on corrupt judges and attorneys in trials with hand picked biased juries. Nothing we set up is perfect.

Blayne: Wow you have this completely backwards. Justice has been destroyed precisely because we do not adhere to it (jury process).

JJ So you maintain then that EVERY single crime needs a jury trial. You are really in a minuscule minority here. Even applying this to one crime, parking tickets for example, would be crazy talk.

Blayne: The basis of all law is no harm no crime. The Idea we don’t have time to give every accused a fair trial is a construct created by attorneys so the can run people through a corrupt system…

JJ I don’t think so. If we gave every law breaker a jury trial we would need ten times as many attorneys and judges.

Blayne: If we had stuck to the maxim of law no harm no crime there would be a lot less cases and a lot less theft by attorneys and judges.

JJ Again, I’m sure your idea of harm differs from many and you are sure yours is the only right one. All the laws we have follow someone’s idea of preventing harm.

Blayne: This just illustrates you do not understand the maxim of law and you are in illusion on this. The 5th Amendment precisely says NO MAN shall be deprived of life liberty and property without due process. Pretty sure that means it INCLUDES EVERYONE.

JJ That’s right, but it doesn’t define due process. A due process was applied to Awlaki but that’s not good enough for you because it doesn’t fit the meaning of due process that you have defined in your belief system.

Blayne The 6th then defines it as trial by jury. They are not mutually exclusive.

JJ That’s your conjecture. The Constitution doesn’t say anything one way or another about exclusiveness.

Blayne: The maxim of law has always been that the federal government can do nothing that is not specifically granted in its charter the constitution. Not; that if it is not spelled out they have free reign to do what ever they want. In other words if it is not in there they can’t do it PERIOD!

JJ You look at the Constitution the way fundamental literalists look at the Bible. This attitude causes them to get many things wrong because they do not look at the Spirit of the word.

There are many things the Federal Government has to do that is not literally spelled out. Adjusting the salaries of Federal workers to inflation is one thing, or should we just pay them $300 a year? (Actually that might be a good idea for a lot of bureaucrats)

Authority to create national highway system was not spelled out but maybe one out of 10,000 thinks the government overstepped its bounds there.

The creation of NASA was not spelled out there but this has been a great benefit for the world.

Many things not specifically spelled out have been fined tuned by judges and new legislation. None of us agree with all the fine-tuning but some has been a stabilizing force. And if some of this offends the people enough public opinion can always force positive change.

Blayne The constitution also settles how we deal with war and lesser threats to the nation.

JJ Yeah, The Constitution does this followed by constitutionally authorized judges and legislation which does not rely on your interpretation. Your opinion does not make law or determine how the Constitution is interpreted.

Blayne: By declarations of war and for lesser actions letters of marque and reprisal period. So there is nothing grey about it…

JJ Nothing grey about it??? Yeah, right. If its so clear then why cannot you and I agree??? It’s so clear that all intelligent people can just give it a quick look and agree with what it says – right? Give me a break.

This is like listening to the extreme religious fundamentalist say something like:

“Jesus says I should pluck out my eye if it offends and my eyes caused me to lust after a woman so I guess I’ll pluck them out.”

Just like that scripture has shades of meaning even so are there differing ways to interpret the Constitution.

The human language is so imperfect that one cannot wrote more than one paragraph that a dozen people will interpret the same way. You even complain that your own words are misunderstood, so what makes you think the Founding Fathers found the magical method of creating a document that is so clear that all who can read will see the meaning the same way and only see differently if they are corrupt?

Do you even read and analyze some of the things you are saying here?

Blayne: IOW I am saying in order for any action to be legal it has to be moral on a basic level.

JJ I’ve already responded to this. See above.

Blayne: And of course there is no accountability here to what they claim. How does anyone know if any of their accusations are true?

JJ And how do you know that the decision of a jury is true. You don’t. There is not 100% surety in any decision made. Without some element of trust nothing can get done. With too much everything falls apart. This is why the Key of Judgment is so important.

Blayne: If they knew where he was to hit him with a drone strike it seems to me they could have captured him fairly easily. There is no proof he was an eminent threat to us.

JJ And how many times has this been done in history with a notorious bad guy? I can’t think of any. And why? Because it takes time and planning to accomplish such a thing and by the time the execution is ready he is likely to be in hiding at another location.


This is all I have time for at the moment….

JJ Probably a good thing you didn’t have two moments.


Copyright 2011 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

(You do not have to log in to add comments)

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go Here

The Molecular Business

This entry is part 26 of 34 in the series 2011C

TEACHER: Today we are going to talk about a dynamic new business idea. It is, perhaps, the first really original business concept since the establishment of free enterprise. It is called the MOLECULAR BUSINESS and is designed to benefit the many instead of the few.

In the beginning of civilization men and women worked instinctively together for the benefit of the tribe or group. Each person had his job, but generally the assets of the group were shared equally according to need, except in cases where the strong took from the weak. There were jobs but no business as we now know it.

As the tribes gathered together and formed kingdoms private business began to be created and people found that by their superior intelligence, hard work, and cunning that they could gain an advantage over their neighbors as long as they found favor in the sight of the king. Thus men began to be divided into two general classes: The rich and the poor. In those days financial security was almost impossible even for the rich for all their wealth could be confiscated by a displeased ruler. The poor generally had no private business or job at all, but were often slaves with no hope for financial abundance.

The third stage of business evolution appeared after the establishment of the democratic society and the freeing of the slaves. At this point we see the establishment of big business and the emergence of the entrepreneur. In this age we find that competition has reached a high point. Everyone in our world today is either directly competing or working for someone who is competing for their share of the market place.

We are now reaching a point in history where there will emerge the next great evolutionary step in business, and we already see foreshadowings of it in the business world. Can you guess what is replacing the competitive business?

STUDENT: I’m not sure.

TEACHER: Have you heard of cooperatives?


TEACHER: Can you tell me how they work?

STUDENT: Basically, there is no one owner, but employees and stockholders all own and operate the business cooperatively.

TEACHER: I’m sure you have also heard of profit sharing haven’t you?


TEACHER: Tell me how you understand this principle.

STUDENT: I understand that the employees are paid in addition to their wages a percentage of the net profits of the business.

TEACHER: Why do you suppose that cooperatives and profit sharing programs have been so successful?

STUDENT: I suppose that they help keep the employees involved.

TEACHER: Even the corporation that sells stock requires a high degree of cooperation and group effort. Such a company has many owners and many people directly benefit from its profits. The corporation, profit sharing, and the cooperative all foreshadow the next great stage of business evolution that will replace the competitive society. Can you guess what that is?

STUDENT: It looks like we are moving towards greater cooperation. (The student may not give this exact answer so the teacher may have to guide him toward it.)

TEACHER: We will soon leave the competitive society and enter a cooperative one. The New Testament gives us an ideal to which the cooperative society will strive. Turn to Acts 4:33 “And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.”

Would you say here that it would take a great deal of cooperation to have all things in common as did the early Christians?


TEACHER: It gives us the basic reason as to why they could cooperate to this extent. Can you find it?

STUDENT: It says that they were of one heart and soul.

TEACHER: If everyone is of one heart and soul then competition automatically ceases and cooperation is the natural course. Cooperative efforts if forced will never excel over a competitive effort, but if cooperation happens naturally then the results will exceed a competitive group.

The key to making a cooperative effort work is to have one mind and heart toward the task at hand whether it is converting the world to Christianity, making a marriage work, or running a business. Let’s talk about this principle in the creating of a successful business. Would you say that most of the people working for the various companies have one heart and mind directed to the benefit of the business or is it that there are generally only a few dedicated toward the good of the whole and the majority are dedicated to getting the most money with the least effort?

STUDENT: I would say that the latter is true.

TEACHER: But if everyone were of one mind and heart this would not be the case. Therefore, we must discover those principles which cause separation in business and correct them. Can you name some of the divisions or classifications of people involved in a typical company?

STUDENT: There are the owners and non owners; management and labor; those who make a lot of money and those who do not.

TEACHER: Would you agree that as a general rule that the owners are much more concerned about the health of the company whereas the non-owners are more concerned about their paycheck?


TEACHER: Would you also agree that there is generally distance between labor and management because labor is at the mercy of management and has little input as to how the company is run, and management often has little sensitivity toward the concerns of labor?

STUDENT: That sounds correct.

TEACHER: And would you further agree that those who are low on the pay scale often feel jealous and separative from those who make a lot of money?


TEACHER: The old saying decrees that “The taste of the pudding is in the pie”. We can see in real life that there is little social intercourse between owners and non owners; management and labor; the rich and the poor. Have you noticed this?


TEACHER: All three of these problems keep the people from being of one heart and mind, but the Molecular Business will correct them all.
First, the division between owners and non-owners will be eliminated because in the Molecular Business all will be owners. Each payday the worker is paid not only with money but a portion of his recompense is in the form of increasing Company ownership, generally in the form of stock. The division of owners and non-owners thus comes to an end as all are owners to some degree. Do you think this would make people feel more involved with their company?


TEACHER: Solving the division between management and labor is a little more complex, but still relatively simple. The Molecular Business management is somewhat comparable to our democratic government whereas existing business government is comparable to totalitarian governments such as Cuba where all authority is invested from the top down instead of from the bottom up. Do you understand the difference of authority placement between the US and a totalitarian state?

STUDENT: I think so. In Cuba the leaders have supreme authority, but in the United States the people do – at least in theory.

TEACHER: Let us describe it this way. The authority in Cuba is from the top down. That means that those in high positions have complete power over those below them. The higher can criticize the lower, but the lower cannot criticize or even suggest that the higher may be wrong.

In the United States the lower can criticize the higher and has power to remove the governing authority from power. The higher can also criticize the lower but is very hesitant to do so for he does not want to offend those who elected him. Thus he only makes a criticism when he is sure he is accurate. Have you heard the President or any other elected official criticize the common man lately?

STUDENT: Only at their peril.

TEACHER: On the other hand, did you notice that the first thing a totalitarian leader does when he gets in office is blame all the troubles of the nation on the common slothful worker?

STUDENT: I do seem to recall that.

TEACHER: Which system do you think works the best: government authority from the top down as in totalitarian states or from the bottom up as is supposed to be in the United States?

STUDENT: The US, of course.

TEACHER: Doesn’t it seem logical that if the bottom up governing system works so much better with a nation that it would also work better with a business?

STUDENT: I suppose.

TEACHER: Doesn’t it also seem strange that the business world has held on to the top down government that belongs to the dark ages and has never in history switched completely to bottom up management?

STUDENT: I suppose it does.

TEACHER: The Molecular Business has a democratic government with control from the bottom up. This concept will revolutionize the business world and dramatically increase the economic stability of the individual.

Let us examine exactly how the bottom up approach in the Molecular Business works as compared with the status quo:

If you work for a regular company today you often begin as a common worker and over you will be a foreman, supervisor, or some type of “boss.” This boss is always right and if you see a better way you normally remain silent. He has complete power over your job and can terminate you on a whim. In essence, for eight hours a day you are his slave. If you have a good master your job will be tolerable, but if your boss is a tyrant you can loose all sense of freedom and you experience for eight hours a day what those in a dictatorship experience all their waking hours.

By contrast, the supervisor in the Molecular Business does not have any such totalitarian power over your job. He can only suggest that you be terminated. And who do you think he has to suggest it to?

STUDENT: His Boss.

TEACHER: His boss would have nothing to do with it, but the supervisor could only suggest termination to your local group of fellow employees. After that they will vote and the manager has to have a two-thirds majority before he can fire you. One of your fellow employees can challenge the boss for his job and call for a vote. If he succeeds they will change positions. Can you see how this will have the effect of taking away your fear of the boss, but making him work harder to get along with your fellow employees?


TEACHER: In a regular company if you want to get a promotion you have to catch the attention of your manager and somehow convince him you are the one for the next promotion. Have you noticed that those who are often promoted are those who are best at making a show when the manager is around?


TEACHER: Who are the ones who really know whether or not you are doing a good job?

STUDENT: The fellow workers.

TEACHER: Your fellow workers are usually with you much more than the manager and they tend to be less biased then the manager. Thus in the Molecular Business any promotion you attain has to be voted on by them. Who do you think decides whether or not you should be nominated for the position of a new supervisor, for instance?

STUDENT: The follow employees.

TEACHER: This may surprise you, but neither your boss nor the employees decide this, but you do. Isn’t the first qualification of a good manager the fact that one must believe that he can do the job, and, above all, want the job?

STUDENT: I guess so.

TEACHER: Therefore, if you believe you can do a better job than your current supervisor all you have to do if you want the job is to challenge the person for his position. Unless two thirds of the employees object the group will have an election and after the votes are tabulated you will be the new manager if you receive the most votes.

Now you are the new supervisor and you are aware that you can be replaced at any time by one of your subordinates are you going to have an incentive to do a good job?

STUDENT: I would think so.

TEACHER: Do you think you will try hard to treat those under you with consideration and kindness?

STUDENT: I would imagine so.

TEACHER: Now you are a supervisor and have learned the ropes you begin to study the position of the area supervisor and realize that you could do a much better job than the person currently there. If you desire you can challenge that person for his job just as you previously did with your supervisor. If all your fellow supervisors vote for you instead of the current position holder you will move up again. You can continue to challenge and replace superiors until you reach your highest level of competence.

In a regular business a person of talent is often viewed as a threat by his superiors and is suppressed in a low position for many years, but in the Molecular Business he will be able to advance very quickly. Why will this be good for the Company?

STUDENT: Key positions will always be held by people of talent who will be better able to help the Company.

TEACHER: Even people who have a good rapport with management will have to work many years to reach their highest level, but can you see how in the Molecular Business any person can reach his highest level of competency in a short fraction of the time?


TEACHER: This also corrects a problem that has been called THE PETER PRINCIPLE which states that in a large company each person raises to his highest level of incompetence. In other words, a person is promoted until he reaches a position he cannot do well then he is promoted no more. Neither is he placed back in a position where he is competent. Instead he is locked into a position where he is incompetent, unhappy, and able to make the working lives of others miserable.

In the Molecular Business this would never happen for when a person reaches a position wherein he does not perform well then it will not be long before he is challenged and replaced. It is obvious that this will be benefit the company, but do you also think it will benefit the individual replaced in the long run to be in a position he can do well rather than one where he can not?


TEACHER: Can you see how the Molecular Business will create a situation here where the individual has more freedom and can express ideas without fear of getting fired?


TEACHER: Can you see how this concept in the Molecular Business will end the division between management and labor and help them come closer to the goal of one heart and one mind?


TEACHER: The third area that creates division among employees in a regular company is the great differences we find in the pay scale. Those who make a lot of money rarely are seen socially with those who do not. This third cause of division is also eliminated in the Molecular Business. This solution may sound radical at first until the whole picture is presented, but all employees in the Molecular Business receive the same take home wage whether he be president of the company or a new worker on the assembly line. Now we realize that common workers would be easy to hire at any reasonable wage, but I’ll bet you are wondering how we can hire and keep management level employees that could make $100,000 or more with another company than with us. Is that right?

STUDENT: Yes. I am curious about that.

TEACHER: Let us say that the pay scale established by the Molecular Business (and these could vary with different businesses) is $40,000 a year. Very few people who are currently making from $100,000 and up will be attracted to us. But remember this that most of them started at a much lower pay scale. Don’t you think that there is a lot of very talented people out there that would start with us for $40,000 and would stay with us if they saw enough benefits?

STUDENT: Possibly.

TEACHER: They will stay with us because they receive payment with more than money. Remember that we told you that all workers are also owners?


TEACHER: The employees (more appropriately called co-owners) are paid with stock or ownership in the company in addition to their take home wage. With every paycheck they receive an increasing ownership in the company as well as cash. Now we told you that all receive the same take home wage. Nevertheless, superior performance or responsibility still needs some kind of reward or bonus doesn’t it?


TEACHER: In other words, people need incentive, don’t they?


TEACHER: In the Molecular Business incentive is created in two ways. First there will be a high degree of involvement and employee satisfaction. Secondly, instead of using money, stock is used as the physical incentive

As we stated all employees from the greatest to the least receive some payment in stock, but this payment varies according to the importance of the person’s position. The entree level worker, for instance, may receive something like two hundred dollars worth of stock a month whereas higher management or workers with essential skills may receive $5,000 to $10,000. That amount of value ought to give some incentive, shouldn’t it?

STUDENT: One would think so.

TEACHER: This principle creates an extension of the most motivated worker in the world. That is the small business owner. Have you noticed how some business owners will work as many as 14 hours a day sometimes seven days a week just to get his business going?


TEACHER: In addition to sacrificing family and pleasures the successful small businessperson, when he is starting a company, will pay himself only what he needs to live on and put the rest back in the company. Why is he willing to do this?

STUDENT: So he can have working capital.

TEACHER: He sacrifices now to obtain working capital in the hopes that his business will be successful. And if it is then he can draw out all the money he needs for pleasures later. He will also be financially independent and not have to work so hard. That’s pretty good incentive isn’t it?

STUDENT: It seems to be.

TEACHER: It is an incentive that has been proven to work. Now the Molecular Business will operate on this principle. Visualize all the workers in a large company as one entity that owns a business. The many people cooperating as if they were one take from the company what they need to live on now and receive the rest of their payment in the form of stock so working capital remains available for expansion. If the company is successful the stock will multiply in value and the workers can eventually cash this in and obtain all the pleasures they want in life as well as financial independence. That sounds like a good idea doesn’t it?


TEACHER: To make this principle work the employees are not actually issued the stock on their payday, but it is credited to them. They can receive the stock and cash it in on three occasions. The first is if they are terminated or quit the company. The second is if they retire. It would make a nice retirement income wouldn’t it?


TEACHER: The third reason for cashing it in is very interesting. The desire of many enterprising individuals is to be financially independent and have a business of their own. If they wish to create another business that is an extension of the mother Molecular Business then they can cash in their stock, and possibly even get a loan from the company, and create a business of their own. A lot of people would really like to own their own business wouldn’t they?


TEACHER: On the other hand, workers do not have quit or wait for retirement to receive greater financial benefits. As the company makes greater profits where do you think the extra money will go?

STUDENT: The employees.

TEACHER: That’s right. As profits increase the take home salary of all the workers increase. If the company is successful eventually all the workers will receive a substantial wage. That would create one happy family of employees wouldn’t it?

STUDENT: It surely would.

TEACHER: When the principle of the Molecular Business proves that it can create more success than anything now existing then many other businesses having financial troubles will want to come under the umbrella of the mother company. The beauty of this is that all businesses under the Molecular Principle will not compete, but cooperate with each other because if one benefits they all benefit. The mother company corresponds to the Constitution and the branch companies are liken to the independent states. Can you see that if the Molecular Business really is superior that many other companies will join it?


TEACHER: And if it does far outperform the orthodox business then it is only a matter of time before all businesses are molecular isn’t it?

STUDENT: I would suppose

TEACHER: That would really change the world for the better wouldn’t it?

STUDENT: It would seem so.

TEACHER: We stated at the beginning that there are three things that keep workers in a state of separateness: income differences, management-labor relations, and the fact that some are owners and others are not. Can you see how the Molecular Business ends these differences?

STUDENT: I believe so.

TEACHER: Can you see how, when these principles are implemented that the people involved in the Molecular Business will really be of one heart and one mind?


TEACHER: Is this something you would like to participate in?

STUDENT: I really would.


Copyright 2011 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

(You do not have to log in to add comments)

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go Here

Fundamental Doctrines

This entry is part 25 of 34 in the series 2011C


 TEACHER: Today’s lesson reviews some fundamentals of The New Age. First we are going to show you from the scriptures why the churches are lacking in knowledge and stimulation. Next we are going to talk about Jesus Christ and the mystery of his name. Then we will go into the real purpose of baptism and the Holy Spirit. Finally we will show that the Bible itself teaches that it does not contain a fullness of His word and prophets and revelation exist today as much or more than it did in ancient times. We think you will find this and other lessons we have quite stimulating and interesting. But first why don’t you tell us a little about your background. Are you familiar with any church?

STUDENT: Yes. (Discuss his or her background a few minutes).


TEACHER: There are certainly a large number of churches in the world today. There are over a thousand Christian as well hundreds of non Christian faiths. Why do you think there are so many?

STUDENT: I guess people have different ideas and interpretations.


TEACHER: Do you think they could all be right?

STUDENT: Not really. (Only use the next paragraph if he thinks one is as right as another).


TEACHER: There are many opposing doctrines taught in the churches where both sides cannot be correct. For instance some teach that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, a perfect man. Others teach that he was a fraud and imposter. Both teachings could not be correct now could they?

STUDENT: I guess not.


TEACHER: On the other hand, none of the churches are entirely wrong either. They all teach us to submit to God and love our brother and sister don’t they?




 TEACHER: A person with pure intent will get some good out of any church. The problem is that they all have some good things about them, but they do not take the people far enough. The Bible talks about these problems connected with our day. Let us read here in Isaiah: [Scripture #1] (Read Isaiah 29:9-10) Stay yourselves, and wonder; cry ye out, and cry: they are drunken, but not with wine; they stagger, but not with strong drink. For the Lord hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered. It tells us here that the people of our day will not be drunk with regular wine, but with what?

STUDENT: A deep sleep.


TEACHER: Yes. The scripture tells us that this condition of sleep has caused the prophets and rulers to be “covered” and the people’s eyes will be closed. Have you noticed that many of the religious people of today seem to have their eyes closed to new knowledge and new and better ways of doing things?

STUDENT: It seems so. (The problems in the Middle East are a good example.)


TEACHER: Let us read more about this subject. Here in Chapter 28 the Lord is talking to people of our day that he calls the “drunkards of Ephraim”. [Scripture #2](Read Isaiah 28:7) But they also have erred through wine, and through strong drink are out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink, they are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the way through strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble in judgement. We have seen from the last quote that drunkenness is not always caused by a literal wine. The wine the ministers of today are drunk with is the scriptures. That may seem funny that the religious leaders and followers are drunk on the scriptures but when you think of all the things that people do in the name of God, it makes sense. Have you heard of people going to war because of some literal interpretation of the Bible or some other religious book?

STUDENT: Yes I have.


TEACHER: And have you heard of people abusing children because of something written in the scriptures?



TEACHER: There are many other strange things people do who are drunk with scripture. They handle poisonous snakes, many men are tyrants over their wives in God’s name. Others believe babies are in a state of sin. Some hate other races because of the Bible. Some will die rather than take a blood transfusion. Many believe their priest or prophet cannot make a mistake when talking about religion because they have a special place with God. Others sell everything they have and go to a mountain top to await the return of Jesus believing he will destroy everyone but themselves. Others will not let their children go to school because they think it is controlled by Satan. Others think the Bible contains all the truth in the world. One of the most common signs of drunkenness is that most religious people think that God is going to send everyone to hell that does not have the same belief system as they do even if they are good and loving people. Now when you think about it, doesn’t it seem like people would have to be drunk to believe and do these things?

STUDENT: It would seem so.


TEACHER: Would you say that Isaiah is right when he says they err in vision, they stumble in judgement.



TEACHER: Now read verse eight. [Scripture #3] For all tables are full of vomit and filthiness, so that there is no place clean. Do you think that some religious leaders, like the child abusers we read of, helped to fulfill this prophecy?



TEACHER: There are many other things besides infidelity that cause uncleanliness. The only real sin condemned by Jesus was hypocrisy. Do you think that this is a problem with the teachers today?

STUDENT: Definitely.


TEACHER: One of the biggest problems in this area is that many people teach love, but do not demonstrate it. Have you noticed this before?



TEACHER: Now read verse nine: [Scripture #4] Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. The apostle Peter tells us that milk is the scriptures. (See I Peter 2:2) and breasts are linked with organizations that claim to be God’s people (see Isa 66:11). Isn’t it interesting that God says that people will have to look beyond the scriptures and churches to find knowledge and understanding?



TEACHER: Next read verse 10: [Scripture #5] For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little. What does the scripture say “must” be added?

STUDENT: Precepts must be added.


TEACHER: Wouldn’t it be difficult to continue to add precepts, knowledge and understanding if we used nothing else but the Bible?

STUDENT: I suppose so.


TEACHER: All of our schools and universities add much knowledge that is not in the Bible. On the other hand, there is much spiritual knowledge that the Bible does not clearly explain. For instance, it does not plainly tell us what happens after we die or how the universe was created. Have you ever had questions that have not been answered from the Bible?



TEACHER: Verse eleven tells us why he repeated himself in verse ten: [Scripture #6] For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. We are taught in English today which is a different language than Isaiah used but the word “stammering” is particularly interesting. It comes from the Hebrew LAEG (Law-ayg) which indicates a silly or imperfect repetition of a foreign speech or a foreign person. Therefore he is prophesying that the people of today will be taught out of the Bible (which was written by a foreign people in another tongue) with silly repetition. Does this prophecy seem to be fulfilled?



TEACHER: Now read verse 12: [Scripture #7] To whom he said, this is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear. God has always promised his people a rest and refreshing. He did through Moses (Exodus 33:14) and also through Jesus. You may remember the words of Jesus when he said: [Scripture #8] Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light. (Matt 11:28-30) Would you say that the ministers of the world have made the burden of the people easier or heavier?

STUDENT: It would seem to be heavier.


TEACHER: The burdens they have heaped upon the people have been great. They expect them to give large sums of money and the people get nothing in return but a large stone building and a sermon once a week. Followers give ministers their dedication, but they receive no new precepts, they give of their spirit yet they get no healing. Lastly they give them custody of their souls yet they have much more guilt and a heavier yoke than the so-called heathen. All the teaching of the scriptures is directed toward lifting our burdens and entering into the rest of God, but how does it say that people will react toward the invitation of rest?

STUDENT: That they would not hear it.


TEACHER: It is amazing that people almost seem to want to have guilt, worries and heavy burdens. Now read Isaiah 28 verse thirteen: [Scripture #9] But the word of the Lord was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept: line upon line, line upon line; here a little and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken. Here he repeats or stammers on the words, “precepts” and “lines” again. Why do you suppose he does that?

STUDENT: To emphasize that the people will be taught with great repetition.


TEACHER: The little light they are given with great repetition will cause the people to do what?

STUDENT: To fall backward, and be broken, and snared and taken.


TEACHER: How do the scriptures, even if they are true, make the people fall backward?

STUDENT: The teachers and the people are asleep and do not understand them.


TEACHER: The word “taken” comes from the Hebrew Lâkad (Law-kad) which means “caught in a trap.” The great repetition and misunderstanding of simple scriptures will actually lead the people backward, instead of forward, into a trap that God has set for the Bible teachers of today. Isaiah tells us in this same chapter that a “report” (verse 19) or message of light will be given and certain calamities will follow it to get the people’s attention. But the trap will be seen when regular church teachings are compared to this message. Is a light more visible in daylight or darkness?

STUDENT: In darkness


TEACHER: The people will see the trap set for the Bible teachers when their darkness is compared with the light of the New Age. The Bible tells us that people will not only stumble with the scriptures, but with Christ himself. Peter here talks about this. (Read I Peter 2:8) [Scripture #10] And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. Here Peter tells us that those who stumble at the word, or the scriptures, and do not fulfill their appointments will have Jesus as “a stone of stumbling.” We talked about how teachers are often blind to the scriptures. Do you think that many of them are also blind to the Living Christ and who he really is?



TEACHER:In the days of the early Christians Paul wrote concerning those who thought they had a corner on the scriptures in that day; (Read Romans 11:8-10) [Scripture #11] (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day. And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap. and a stumblingblock, and a recompense to them: Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway. Do you think that history is repeating itself and that this scripture applies to the religions today?




 TEACHER: It is important here that we clear up some of the darkness surrounding Jesus. The various sects today are purporting the idea that Jesus is the one and only Son of God. The Bible, on the other hand, shows Jesus as our wiser brother who came to show us an example and to teach us. A lot of the problem is caused through mistranslation. Let us read John 10:36: [Scripture #12] Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said I am the Son of God? Notice Jesus is quoted as saying he is “the” Son of God but in the Greek that it is translated from there is no ‘the’ and it is correctly translated as “a Son of God.” Why do you suppose the translators mistranslate it even though they know better?

STUDENT: Because it goes along with what they believe.


TEACHER: It is surprising that they did not repeat the error with the word Saviour because most sects call him “the Saviour.” Let us read Luke 2:11: [Scripture #13] For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. When someone is called “the” something it generally means he is the only one, but when he is called “a” something it means he is one of many. Since Jesus was called a Son of God and a Saviour would this mean that there are other Sons of God and other Saviours besides him?

STUDENT: I suppose so.


TEACHER: We will prove it. Read Obediah verse 21: [Scripture #14] And Saviours shall come up on mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau; and the kingdom shall be the Lord’s. How do we know there will be more than one saviour here?

STUDENT: Because Saviours is plural.


TEACHER: There are numerous instances in the scriptures where we are called brethren to Jesus. (See: Matt 25:40; Heb 2:11 & Rom 8:29) If Jesus is our brother would we also not be sons of God?

STUDENT: I would think so.


TEACHER: There are many scriptures that teach this. We’ll just read one (Read Romans 8:14-17): [Scripture #15] For as many as are lead by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God. And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. How many of us are sons of God according to verse 14?

STUDENT: As many as are lead by the Spirit.


TEACHER: It says we will be joint-heirs with Christ. What does this mean?

STUDENT: It would mean that we will inherit the same benefits that he will.


TEACHER: Another false teaching is that the man Jesus created the heaven and earth. This is because Jesus is identified with the word of God in John (Read John 1:1-3): [Scripture #16] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. If Jesus was the Word it certainly sounds like he created everything, doesn’t it?



TEACHER: There is an important word here that is mistranslated. In verse three instead of “him” it should read “it.” Now read it over and tell me how that changes the meaning.

STUDENT: “It” would not refer to a person.


TEACHER: “It” here is the creative Spirit of God that not only flows through Jesus, but through all of us. Just as Jesus is not the only Word he is also not the only Christ. To understand what Christ is it would be helpful to read all of First Corinthians Chapter Twelve. We will just take time for verse 12 however: [Scripture #17] For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. Here Christ is not referred to as a person but what?

STUDENT: A body.


TEACHER: Does it say that the body has one member, or many members?

STUDENT: Many members.


TEACHER: Now read verse 27. It tells who the members of the body were: [Scripture #18] Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. Who are the members that made up Christ?

STUDENT: The people Paul was writing to and probably us today also.


TEACHER: The man Jesus is not all of Christ there is but is merely the head (Colossians 1:18) of the body of Christ. Now another startling fact is that the Master from Galilee is only one of many that bears the name of Jesus Christ. The name actually signifies a calling and means “anointed to deliver, or save.” Jesus Christ is the Saviour of the world, but there are many who cooperate in that calling. The man Jesus is our head or leader, but the name is shared with infinite beings throughout the universe. Others who were called Christ or Messiah (which has the same meaning) are Saul (I Sam 24:10), David (Psalms 89:38), King Cyrus (Isaiah 45:1, Israel Psalms 105:14-15) and the High Priest (Leviticus 4:5). The root of the word is used in connection with the early saints: (Read II Corinthians 1:21) [Scripture #19] Now he which stablishesth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God. The word “anointed” here comes from the same root as Christ does and could be translated as “Christed”. Now read it again translated this way.

STUDENT: Now he which stablishesth us with you in Christ, and hath Christed us, is God.


TEACHER: Were other people besides Jesus Christed then?

STUDENT: It appears so.


TEACHER: This name that we can share is a great mystery and a stumbling block to the religions throughout history. Let us read here where Paul is talking about Jesus Christ. (Read Ephesians 1:21): [Scripture #20] {He is} Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in the world to come. The name of Jesus Christ is higher than any name not only in this world, but where else?

STUDENT: Also the world to come.


TEACHER: Now read Philippians 2:9: [Scripture #21] Wherefore God hath highly exalted him (Jesus), and given him a name which is above every name. The name of Jesus Christ is higher than how many names?

STUDENT: “Every name.”


TEACHER: Jesus often talked about his Father’s name. Let us read an interesting scripture about it. Read the first two lines of verses 6 & 26 in John Chapter 17. [Scripture #22] I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me… And I have declared unto them (the disciples) thy name, and will declare it… Here we are told that Jesus revealed to men the name of the Father. Do you remember any scripture where Jesus identified the name of the Father?


TEACHER: The name of the Father was revealed many times. We have just missed it. We can read a hint in the last sentence of John 14:28: [Scripture #23] My Father is greater than I. Who was the greatest? Jesus or his Father?

STUDENT: The Father.


TEACHER: Therefore who should have the greatest name?

STUDENT: The Father


TEACHER: But who does the scriptures say has the highest name in this world or the world to come? (Refer back to Eph. 1:21 and Phil 2:9 [Scriptures 20&21] if necessary)

STUDENT: Jesus Christ


TEACHER: How could Jesus Christ have the highest name when the Father is greater?

STUDENT: I’m not sure.


TEACHER: We’ll read one more scripture to clarify this. Let us turn to John 10:25: [Scripture #24] Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed me not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me. Whose name did Jesus do his works in?

STUDENT: The Father’s.


TEACHER: And what name was that?

STUDENT: The name of Jesus Christ.


TEACHER: This makes everything logical. If the name of Jesus Christ is the highest then and the Father is greater than the man Jesus, then the name of the Father would also have to be the highest name, wouldn’t it?



TEACHER: Obviously, the Father would not have a lower name than the Son. On the other hand do not sons carry the same name as their fathers?

STUDENT: Yes they do?


TEACHER: This is verified in Ephesians 3:14-15: [Scripture #25] For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named. Earlier we read that God’s sons are those who have his Spirit. Would you agree that the Father’s family are the Sons and Daughters of God, or those who are in tune with His Spirit?



TEACHER: This scripture says that God’s family in heaven and on earth is named after who?

STUDENT: The Father.


TEACHER: And what name does he have?

STUDENT: Jesus Christ.


TEACHER: Do you remember what this name means?

STUDENT: Anointed to deliver or save.


TEACHER: The reason it is the highest name is because there is no greater calling in the universe than to be anointed to deliver or save others from a lower estate or plane of consciousness and bring them up higher. Can you think of a greater work than helping someone else in their progression?



TEACHER: As final evidence of this let us read the final words of Jesus to his disciples: (Read Matthew 28:19) [Scripture #26] Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Look at the word “name” here and tell me if it is singular or plural.

STUDENT: It is singular.


TEACHER: Now if the Father, Son and Holy Ghost had three names it would read “the names of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost,” but because it is singular, how many names would he be referring to?

STUDENT: One name.


TEACHER: Peter clearly tells us what name that was (Read Acts 2:38): [Scripture #27] Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. So what was the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost that they were commanded by Jesus to be baptized in?

STUDENT: The name of Jesus Christ.


TEACHER: The next thing we need to learn is how to take upon ourselves the name of Jesus Christ. An ordinance was instituted to help us accomplish this. Do you know what it was?

STUDENT: Was it baptism?


TEACHER: Let us read the effect of baptism: (Read Galatians 3:27): [Scripture #28] For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. What is supposed to happen through baptism?

STUDENT: We put on Christ.


TEACHER: Do you suppose that means that we take his name upon us as well as his nature?

STUDENT: It could.


TEACHER: Not only do we take his name upon us but we also are to bear his image. (Read Romans 8:29): [Scripture #29] For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son [Christ], that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Whose image are we supposed to bear?

STUDENT: The Christ or the Son of God.


TEACHER: How do we know from this scripture that Jesus will not be the only Christ, or the last one born?

STUDENT: Because it calls him the firstborn among many brethren. Therefore there are going to be many more like him.


TEACHER: In addition we are supposed to have another part of Christ in us. Read here in Philippians: (Phil 2:5-6) [Scripture #30] Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God. What is supposed to be in us?

STUDENT: The same mind that was in Jesus.


TEACHER: Now let us read about what we are supposed to be like when the Master appears: (Read I John 3:2) [Scripture #31] Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. What are we to be like when he appears?

STUDENT: Like him.


TEACHER: And why is that?

STUDENT: Because we shall see him as he is.


TEACHER: And what is he?

STUDENT: Our brother. (Remember he was the firstborn of many brethren?)




 TEACHER: The mode of baptism as well as the reason is clearly given by Paul: (Read Romans 6:3-5) [Scripture #32] Know ye not, that so many of us were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection. When we are buried in the water through baptism it is a symbol of what?

STUDENT: The burial of Christ in the tomb.


TEACHER: And what is being raised up out of the water a symbol of?

STUDENT: Christ being raised from the dead


TEACHER: It is also a symbol of being born again. Before we are born for the first time we are completely submerged in water. By submerging ourselves completely in water through baptism we are symbolizing a new birth. Let us read about this newness. (Read II Cor 5:17) [Scripture #33] Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold all things are become new. This new birth is a symbol of starting over in the life of the Spirit with a clean slate, as if all past mistakes have never been, and all guilt is instantly washed away. Why do you suppose Jesus, the greatest of us all, was baptized?

STUDENT: To set the example for us.


TEACHER: Do you remember what descended and rested upon Jesus when he was baptized?

STUDENT: The Spirit of God


TEACHER: There is an ordinance to assist us in receiving the spirit which is mentioned in Acts Chapter Eight verses fourteen through seventeen: [Scripture #34] Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost. (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. What did the apostles do to help the church members receive the Holy Ghost?

STUDENT: They laid their hands on them.


TEACHER: Again this follows a correspondence. Right after we are born we come out of water and have the spirit of life enter us. After we are born spiritually through baptism what is to enter us?

STUDENT: The spirit of God.




 TEACHER: Many of the churches today teach that all that God has to say to man is contained in the Bible. Does it make any sense that God would speak to people in one age, but not another?

STUDENT: Not really


TEACHER: The Bible indicates that this is true. (Read Acts 10:34) [Scripture #35] Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respector of persons. If this is true would God respect the people in one age and give them revelation, but close the windows of heaven to their requests in another?

STUDENT: I would not think so.


TEACHER: Many churches teach that there will be no more prophets after Jesus, but this is not in harmony with the Bible. Let us read here in Ephesians (Eph 2:19-20): [Scripture #36] Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God. And are built upon the foundation of apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone. What is the foundation of the church of Christ?

STUDENT: Apostles and prophets.


TEACHER: The Bible even names prophets that were in the church after Jesus left. (Read Acts 13:1) [Scripture #37] Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. How many prophets were named in the one city of Antioch alone?

STUDENT: Four: Barnabas, Simeon, Lucius, and Manaen.


TEACHER: Now a prophet is one who has power to prophesy or reveal spiritual truths. An important ingredient in becoming a prophet is mentioned in the Book of Revelations: (Rev 19:10) [Scripture #38] And I fell at his (the angel’s) feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophesy. This scripture tells us that we will have the spirit of prophecy if what happens?

STUDENT: If we have a testimony of Jesus.


TEACHER: If you had the spirit of prophecy then you’d be a prophet, wouldn’t you?

STUDENT: I suppose so.


TEACHER: This spirit is supposed to rest upon many people in the time we are approaching. We can read about this in Joel (Read Joel 2:28-29) [Scripture #39] And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: And upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit. It sounds like there will be many prophets doesn’t it?



TEACHER: Will the prophets be just men, or men and women?

STUDENT: The scripture mentions daughters and handmaids so it must be men and women.


TEACHER: Did you ever think that you may become a prophet yourself?

STUDENT: I never thought about it that way.


TEACHER: We must always remember that the gifts of the Spirit are for all men and women, not just a select few. One of the reasons many churches do not believe in revelation today is because of one of the last verses in the Bible. (Read Revelations 22:18): [Scripture #40] For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. Many people think that the book talked about here is the Bible and that whoever adds new revelation to it will be damned, but did the Bible even exist as a book at the time John was writing the Book of Revelations?



TEACHER: The Bible was not compiled as we have it today until hundreds of years later; therefore what book could John have been referring to?

STUDENT: The Book of Revelations.


TEACHER: John was merely telling readers not to alter his book. If you wrote an inspired book you wouldn’t want people to change it either, would you?

STUDENT: I guess not.


TEACHER: Furthermore John himself added to the Bible after the Book of Revelations was written. Scholars say that he wrote the Gospel of John after the Book of Revelations and that it is the last book written for the Bible. Therefore, if the books of the Bible were placed in chronological order the Book of John would be last. Now let us read the true last verse of the Bible. (Read John 21:25) [Scripture #41] And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen. Does this sound like that there could be more spiritual books than just the Bible?

STUDENT: It certainly does.


TEACHER: In fact the Bible clearly tells us that all things hidden shall be revealed. (Read Luke 12:2): [Scripture #42] For there is nothing covered that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known. Do you think it will take more than the Bible to reveal all hidden things to mankind?

STUDENT: Definitely.


TEACHER: In the past God has revealed his word through scriptures. You are probably aware that there are many other scriptures in the world. Almost every religion has some type of holy book. We read earlier that God is no respector of persons. Therefore do you think he may have given inspiration and revelation to other people besides the Jews?

STUDENT: It is possible.


TEACHER: Therefore do you think that these other world scriptures may also have many worthwhile things in them just as the Bible does?

STUDENT: Probably.


TEACHER: A church teaching the truth does not recognize any book or an interpretation of any book as infallible because all truths have to be filtered through human consciousness. But we can get infallible truth from any scripture if we read it in connection with what?

STUDENT: The Spirit of God within us.


TEACHER: Therefore we encourage people to read and teach from any of the world scriptures that teach truths that are verified by our Higher Selves. Does that sound fair enough?



TEACHER: There are many other good books in the world too numerous to mention that teaches many great and important principles. We encourage people to read and study several books which we believe are revelations given out either through Jesus Christ or under His direction. They are as follows: (1) Many of the world scriptures. (2) The Secret Doctrine through Madame H. P. Blavatski. This was published in 1888 and revealed by a Master working under the Christ. It contains introductory teachings for the New Age. (3) The writings of Alice A. Bailey. She published twenty-four books with revelations from the same Master. These contain the intermediate teachings for the New Age. The advanced teachings will be given out around 2025. (4) The Course In Miracles. This is a three-volume set designed to lead us away from the illusion to the true reality. (5) The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ. This is a revelation given out around the turn of the century giving a history of the entire life of Jesus. (6) Inspired writings that will be given out from time to time. This ought to give us plenty of study materials for a while, shouldn’t it?

STUDENT: You’d think so.


Copyright 2011 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

(You do not have to log in to add comments)

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go Here